In the case of William C. Atwater & Company, Inc. v. United States (1922), the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over tariffs and import duties related to sugar imports from Cuba into the U.S. The plaintiff, William C. Atwater & Co., argued that they were entitled to a refund for excess customs duties paid due to an error in classification by customs officials who had classified their imported sugar as "raw" instead of "refined". However, the government contended that under Section 28 of Tariff Act of 1913, refined sugars were subject to higher duty than raw sugars and thus no refund was warranted. The court sided with the government's interpretation stating that while there may have been some ambiguity in defining what constituted 'raw' or 'refined' sugar within this context; it was not unreasonable for officials to classify these particular imports as raw given their condition upon arrival at port. This decision upheld tariff laws which allowed discretion in classifying goods based on their state at time of importation rather than intended use after processing domestically - thereby affirming governmental authority over trade regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for William C. Atwater & Company, Inc. v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction under the Lever Act was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there had been an actual intent to defraud on part of Atwater & Co., which he believed was necessary for a conviction under this act. He also disagreed with their interpretation of "unjust enrichment" and stated that they were wrong in assuming that every sale above cost automatically constituted unjust enrichment without considering other factors such as risk and general business expenses. Furthermore, he criticized them for failing to provide clear guidelines on what constitutes reasonable profits during times of war or national emergency, thus leaving businesses uncertain about how much profit is too much under these circumstances.