In the United States v. Schider case of 1917, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning import duties and tariff classification. Joseph L. Schider & Co., an importer, had brought in merchandise from abroad which was classified by customs officials under paragraph 399 of the Tariff Act as "manufactures of metal not specially provided for." This resulted in a higher duty than if it were categorized differently. The company protested this classification and sued for recovery of alleged excessive duties paid under protest. The Supreme Court held that while some parts of the imported goods could be considered 'unfinished manufactures,' they did not constitute 'manufactures' within meaning and intent of paragraph 399 because they required further manufacturing processes to become finished articles ready for use or sale as contemplated by said provision. Therefore, these items should have been classified separately according to their respective conditions at time when imported rather than collectively under one general category leading to imposition of higher tariffs overall. Consequently, it was decided that Schider's claim was valid; he had indeed overpaid his import duties due to incorrect categorization.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Schider case argued that the government had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that Joseph L. Schider & Co., a company engaged in interstate commerce, was guilty of violating the Elkins Act by receiving rebates from railroads. The justice contended that while it was clear there were discrepancies between what different customers paid for similar services, this did not necessarily indicate illegal activity on part of Schider & Co. He further stated that these differences could be due to legitimate business reasons such as volume discounts or long-term contracts and thus should not automatically be assumed as proof of wrongdoing without more concrete evidence being presented.