Legal Opinion
United States v. Goldfrank
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided November 19, 1928No. 3107PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGraham, Presiding Judge
This appeal involves the classification of certain ladies’ embroidered collars imported at the port of New York. They were classified by the collector as embroidered net and embroideries on net at 90 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1430 of the Tariff Act of 1922. The importer claims that the merchandise was properly dutiable as articles embroidered at 75 per centum ad valorem under said paragraph 3140. The court below sustained the protest, and from the judgment of said court the Government has appealed.
The facts in the case are stipulated, the stipulation being, in its material…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pustet v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- United States v. Smith & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
- Glemby's Sons Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- United States v. Chesterton Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
- United States v. FieldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Adele v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1936
- John Heathcoat & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1948
- United States v. Beyda Franco Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934
- United States v. CaesarCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- United States v. CaesarCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.