Legal Opinion

United States v. Henry L. Exstein Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 19, 1928No. 3086PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGeaham, Presiding Judge

William H. Masson entered certain so-called deformed steel bars at the port of Baltimore, which were duly classified by the collector there as steel bars, under paragraph 304 of the Tariff Act of 1922. The appellee protested, claiming the same to be dutiable as structural shapes of steel, under paragraph 312 of the same act. The matter was duly heard by the United States Customs Court, and judgment was entered there sustaining the protest and directing a reclassification accordingly. From that judgment the Government has appealed, alleging that the original classification by the collector was…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
  2. United States v. FrankCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. Birtwell v. SaltonstallU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1889

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. S.G.B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979
  2. Soule v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  3. Preload Construction Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  4. T. D. Downing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  5. Great Western Mercantile Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950

24 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