Liberty Lace & Netting Works v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Lawrence, Judge:
The imported mechanism is invoiced as “Jar-dine’s patent Threading Machine.” It was assessed with duty at 27% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1920 as a machine, not specially provided for. It is'claimed, in the amended protest, to he properly dutiable at 20 per centum ad valorem under the provision for—
Textile machinery, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for, for textile manufacturing or processing prior to the making of fabrics or woven, knit, crocheted, or felt articles not made from fabrics (except worsted combs, bleaching,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cochrane v. DeenerSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Corning v. BurdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Tide Water Oil Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Whitlock Cordage Co. v. Untied StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Bache v. Central Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- American Feldmuehle Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
- F.W. Myers & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1985
- Intelex Systems, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970