Legal Opinion

United States v. Tower & Sons

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 1, 1920No. 2023PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 8306 (T. D. 38190). (Oral argument Mar. 26, 1920, by Mr. Baldwin and Mr. TompMns.]

1Opinion of the Court

Smith, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

Certain metallic material imported at tbe port of Buffalo, N. Y., was classified by tbe collector as ferrosilicon and assessed for duty at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under that part of paragraph 102 of tbe tariff act of October 3, 1913, which reads as follows:

102. Chrome * * * ferrophosphorus, ferrotitanium * * * ferrosilicon, and other alloys used in the manufacture of steel, not specially provided for in this section, 15 per centum ad valorem.

The importers protested that tbe merchandise was not dutiable as ferrosilicon or otherwise at…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. FaunceCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Tower v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1947
  2. C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  3. C. J. Tower & Sons v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  4. C. J. Tower & Sons v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API