United States v. Herrmann
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
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
- American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
- United States v. Doragon Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- United States v. International Forwarding Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- United States v. BernardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- United States v. International Forwarding Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.