Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Herrmann

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 29, 1942No. 4372Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Bland, Judge:

I regret my inability to agree with my associates that the imported merchandise involved here is not jewelry.

As I understand the opinion of the majority, it is to the effect that the articles — leather cuff links — do not fall within the term “Jewelry, commonly or commercially so known, * * * of whatever material composed,” for the sole reason that they are not sufficiently ornamental to be regarded as jewelry.

According to American Bead Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 18, T. D. 36259, a thing, to be jewelry under tariff acts enacted prior to 1922, had…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  2. United States v. Doragon Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  3. United States v. International Forwarding Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  4. United States v. BernardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  5. United States v. International Forwarding Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API