opinion: GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Plaintiff, Plaintiff in Error, v. Juan G. GALLARDO, Treasurer, Defendant, Defendant in Error.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
  November 8, 1927.
  No. 2134.
  Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Porto Rico.
  Nelson Gammans, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
  William C. Rigby, of Washington, D. C., George C. Butte, Atty. Gen., and J. A. Lopez Acosta, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
  Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This is an action at law, brought in the federal District Court of Porto Rico, to recover taxes paid under protest. The plaintiff seeks to recover $8,000.13, that being the amount of taxes assessed under the Porto Rico Tax Act of August 20, 1925 (Acts Porto Rico 1925, No. 85), and paid under protest. The tax was assessed upon automobile tires and other articles manufactured by the plaintiff in the United States and imported into and sold by it in Porto Rico. In the District Court judgment was entered for the defendant, from which this writ was prosecuted.
  We regard the questions presented as concluded by our decisions in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Gallardo, Treas. (C. C. A.) 18 F.(2d) 926; Sanchez Morales & Co. v. Gallardo, Treas. (C. C. A.) 18 F.(2d) 550; and Porto Rico Tax Appeals (C. C. A.) 16 F. (2d) 545.
  The judgment of the District Court of Porto Rico is affirmed, with costs to the defendant in error.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "trade". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto, auto parts, auto repairs chemical drug food oil, natural gas, gasoline textile, clothing electronic alcohol or tobacco general merchandise other  unclear