1. United States v. American Bead Co. Copy cite
   7 Ct. Cust. 132 Customs and Patent Appeals May 23, 1916 No. 1643
   Cited by 4

   Smith, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Rosaries of silver-plated metal and colored glass, metal chief value, imported at the port of New York, were classified by the collector *133 of customs as articles designed to be carried on or about tbe person

2. Graser-Rothe v. United States Copy cite
   7 Ct. Cust. 142 Customs and Patent Appeals May 23, 1916 No. 1686
   Cited by 2

   Barber, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise in this case was assessed by the collector as chair canes manufactured from rattan under paragraph 173 of the act of 1913. The protest claimed free entry as “rough rattan sticks cut in lengths

3. Calhoun, Robbins & Co. v. United States Copy cite
   8 Ct. Cust. 360 Customs and Patent Appeals April 30, 1918 No. 1880
   Cited by 5

   'MONTGOMERY, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This case involves two classes of merchandise. One class is composed of cotton and india rubber, the other of silk and india rubber. Two distinct issues are presented. Both classes were assessed

4. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States Copy cite
   191 F. 856 Commerce Court November 14, 1911 Nos. 50, 51
   Cited by 2

   MACK, Judge. These cases involve the constitutionality and interpretation of section 4 of the act to regulate commerce (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154]), as amended June 18, 1910 ( 36 Stat. 547 , c. 309, § 8), and the powers

5. United States v. Leavitt Copy cite
   7 Ct. Cust. 144 Customs and Patent Appeals May 23, 1916 No. 1650
   Cited by 1

   Martin, Judge, delivered the opinion of tbe court: The present case relates to certain merchandise which was reported by the appraiser to be "spruce gum, cleaned,” and was assessed with duty by the collector at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under the provision

6. Connor v. United States Copy cite
   9 Ct. Cust. 312 Customs and Patent Appeals December 31, 1919 No. 1960
   Not cited

   Smith, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Certain textile fabrics were held by the collectors of customs at the' ports of 'New York and Philadelphia to he dutiable at 35 percent ad valorem, either as cloths .composed wholly or in chief value of wool

7. Horstman Co. v. United States Copy cite
   6 Ct. Cust. 458 Customs and Patent Appeals December 6, 1915 No. 1589
   Cited by 3

   De Vries, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal concerns the dutiable classification of certain military epaulets. They were reported by the appraiser and returned by the collector at the port of Philadelphia as composed in chief value of metal

8. United States v. Geisenheimer Copy cite
   6 Ct. Cust. 520 Customs and Patent Appeals January 28, 1916 No. 1597
   Cited by 1

   Smith, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: In addition to the duty imposed on sulphide of sodium imported at the port of Philadelphia, the collector of customs subjected the metal drums containing the chemical to a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem under

9. Mamluck v. United States Copy cite
   6 Ct. Cust. 556 Customs and Patent Appeals February 21, 1916 No. 1603
   Cited by 10

   Martin, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: There are two articles of merchandise involved in the present case, both imported under the tariff act of 1913. These are metal necklace clasps valued at more than 20 cents per dozen pieces, and small coin-passes

10. United States v. Tower Copy cite
    6 Ct. Cust. 562 Customs and Patent Appeals February 21, 1916 No. 1639
    Cited by 14

    Martin, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The present articles are certain 14 bundles of rakes, which were imported under the tariff act of 1913. The rake heads are metal, the handles wood. ' The collector assessed duty upon the importations at the

11. Vantine & Co. v. United States Copy cite
    9 Ct. Cust. 291 Customs and Patent Appeals December 12, 1919 No. 1984
    Cited by 2

    Barber, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. This case involves two protests, 850436 and 850555. The merchandise is chinaware. The question is whether it is classifiable under paragraph 79 or 80 of the tariff act of 1913. We quote the material parts of

12. United States v. American Express Co. Copy cite
    6 Ct. Cust. 494 Customs and Patent Appeals January 22, 1916 No. 1552
    Cited by 15

    Smith, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Goods known as “ fraises,” imported at the port of New York, were classified by the collector of customs as manufactures of metal not specially provided for and assessed for duty at 20 ■ per cent ad valorem under

13. Oberle v. United States Copy cite
    7 Ct. Cust. 404 Customs and Patent Appeals January 22, 1917 No. 1753
    Cited by 1

    Montgomery, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise in this case was imported at the port of New Orleans for warehousing on May 5, 1914. Upon entering the mer *405 chandise the importers deducted from the invoice value certain non-dutiable

14. United States v. White Copy cite
    8 Ct. Cust. 115 Customs and Patent Appeals May 14, 1917 Nos. 1778; No. 1779
    Not cited

    Martin, Judge, delivered the opinion of tbe court: The merchandise involved in this case is invoiced as weasands, and is so designated by the importers in one of the protests. Upon the record.it is clear that the articles are dried beef weasands. They were assessed

15. Germania Importing Co. v. United States Copy cite
    8 Ct. Cust. 219 Customs and Patent Appeals December 4, 1917 No. 1751
    Not cited

    De Vries, Judge, defivered tbe opinion of tbe court: Tbe subject of tbis appeal was imported from Bremen, Germany, and invoiced as “bnoleum cement.” Its exact imported status, tbe record shows, was accurately described by tbe secretary of tbe importing company

16. Park & Tilford v. United States Copy cite
    9 Ct. Cust. 53 Customs and Patent Appeals January 28, 1919 No. 1924
    Cited by 8

    Martin, Judge, delivered the opinion- of.the court; The merchandise in this case consists of whisky in casks. The importation was made under the tariff act of 1913. *54 The question at issue does not relate to the rate of duty assessed by the collector upon

17. Beuttell & Sons v. United States Copy cite
    9 Ct. Cust. 38 Customs and Patent Appeals January 28, 1919 No. 1872
    Not cited

    Per curiam: This is a petition to reargue the case reported in 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 409 ; T. D. 37666. *39 The gist of the petition is stated therein as follows: In order that the question of the similarity of machine-made Wilton rugs to machine-made Axminster

18. United States v. Tsai Copy cite
    9 Ct. Cust. 42 Customs and Patent Appeals January 28, 1919 No. 1915
    Cited by 3

    Montgomery, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise under consideration in this case consists of certain porcelain vases and earthenware and stone articles imported *43 from China. There were included in the importation also some

19. Choy Chong Woh & Co. v. United States Copy cite
    2 Ct. Cust. 274 Customs and Patent Appeals October 16, 1911 No. 595
    Cited by 2

    MONTGOMERY, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Tlie appeal covers mushrooms in tins contained in outside wooden cases. Some of the cases contain 20 and others 2 to 4 tins. They were classified for duty at 2-)- cents per pound, including the

20. Germania Importing Co. v. United States Copy cite
    6 Ct. Cust. 467 Customs and Patent Appeals December 6, 1915 No. 1572
    Cited by 7

    Martin, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise now in question was classified by the collector as “tissue paper,” and accordingly was assessed with duty at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 323 of the tariff act of 1913.

Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.