Legal Opinion

Kotzin Bros. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 1, 1926No. 2701PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

The merchandise involved in this appeal consists of clocked silk hosiery imported under the tariff act of 1913, and clocked wool hosiery imported under the Tariff Act of 1922.

The silk hosiery, represented by Exhibit 1 in protest No. 971599, was assessed for duty by the collector at 60 per centum ad valorem as embroidered wearing apparel under paragraph 358 of the Tariff Act of 1913, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

Par. 358. * * * embroideries, wearing apparel, handkerchiefs, and all articles or fabrics embroidered in any manner by hand or machinery, whether with a plain or fancy…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Newman v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  2. Mason v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. Habicht, Braun & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  4. Koch v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  5. Smith & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. E. C. Carter, & Son, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  2. United States v. Kny-Scheerer Corp. of AmericaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. Advance Solvents & Chemical Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1946
  4. Danish Bakers, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  5. John Heathcoat & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1948

10 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