United States v. P. E. Anderson & Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Unitéd States for the Southern District of New York. Appeal by the government, from a decision of the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, in a customs case. The merchandise consists of chalk precipitated artificially. It was assessed for duty by the collector under tiie following portion of paragraph 13 of the tariff act of 1897 (Act July 24. 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule A, 30 Stat. 152 [U. S. Comp.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Unitéd States for the Southern District of New York. Appeal by the government, from a decision of the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, in a customs case. The merchandise consists of chalk precipitated artificially. It was assessed for duty by the collector under tiie following portion of paragraph 13 of the tariff act of 1897 (Act July 24. 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule A, 30 Stat. 152 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 10271): “Chalk (not medicinal nor prepared for toilet purposes) when ground, precipitated naturally or artificially or otherwise prepared…
1Opinion of the CourtNoyes, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The former decision of the Circuit Court holding that this article was a manufacture of chalk was rendered in 1903. No appeal was taken from the decision, and it was followed by the Treasury Department until the present importation.' The importers are right in their contention that consideration should he given to this circumstance. Long-continued practice carries weight, and might be decisive in a doubtful case. But, notwithstanding the decision of the Circuit Court and the acquiescence therein, we cannot regard this as a doubtful case.
■ In the first…
2Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. Amerman & PattersonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919