Thomas v. Wanamaker
THOMAS, Collector of Customs v. WANAMAKER
Thomas v. Wanamaker, 129 F. 92 (3d Cir. 1904)
Syllabus
1. Customs Duties — Classification—Dress Goods — Embroidered Woolen Articles — Wearing Apparel.
Held, that so-called wool “dress robes” or “dress patterns,” consisting of women’s dress goods of wool, embroidered with silk, imported in single patterns in separate lengths and pieces, each pattern comprising the material for the body and trimming of a dress, are “dress goods,” and are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 369, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule K, 30 Stat. 184 [ü. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1667], for “women’s * * * dress goods * * * composed wholly or in part of wool,” which is limited by the expression “not specially provided for in this act,” and not under paragraph 371 of said act, c. 11, § 1, Schedule K, 30 Stat. 185 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1667], which provides, without such limitation, for “articles embroidered, * * * made of wool,” nor under paragraph 370 of said act, e. 11, § 1, Schedule K, 30 Stat. 184 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1667], relating to “articles of wearing apparel of every description, * * * manufactured * * * in part, * * * composed wholly or in part of wool.”
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This appeal was brought by C. Wesley Thomas, Collector of Customs at the port of Philadelphia, from an affirmance (123 Fed. 193), by the Circuit Court of two decisions of the Board of General Appraisers covering, importations by John Wanamaker, and reversing the assessment of duty.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
Nothing need be added to the opinion of the Board of Appraisers. We think it adequately supports the decision made by the board, and the decree of the Circuit Court sustaining that decision is therefore affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.