Pacific Iron & Metal Co. v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge
Merchandise, described in the invoices and consumption entries as “wiping rags,” and bought and sold and known in the trade and commerce of the United States as “wiping rags,” or as “wipers” (such trade terms being used interchangeably), was assessed for duty by the collector at the port of Seattle at 10 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1457 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which reads;
Par. 1457. Waste, not specially provided for, 10 per centum ad valorem.
The importer claimed in its protest that the merchandise was free of duty under paragraph 1651, 1516, 1601, or 1560, or dutiable at 10 per…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ishimitsu v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
- Harley Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- United States v. StoneCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
- United States v. Michelin Tire Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
- United States v. Washburn-Crosby Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hawley v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- Lee v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
- S. Schapiro & Sons v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941
- Caracul Fur Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
- Majestic Lace & Embroidery Works v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.