In re Straus
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. The firm of L. Straus & Son on October 11 and 29, 1890, imported by the Polynesia and Arabia certain Bohemian glassware, which was duly entered at the port of New York and classified and assessed by the collector of customs at that port at 60 per cent, ad valorem, as an “article of glass, colored,” under paragraph 106 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested, claiming that the said goods were dutiable under Schedule B, par. 143, of the tariff act…
Read the full summary
At Law. The firm of L. Straus & Son on October 11 and 29, 1890, imported by the Polynesia and Arabia certain Bohemian glassware, which was duly entered at the port of New York and classified and assessed by the collector of customs at that port at 60 per cent, ad valorem, as an “article of glass, colored,” under paragraph 106 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested, claiming that the said goods were dutiable under Schedule B, par. 143, of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, at 45 per cent, ad valorem as “Bohemian glass,” and claiming that said merchandise, being…
1Opinion of the Court
Lacombe, Circuit Judge.
Taking the language of the new tariff act as a whole and in its entirety, from beginning to end, I cannot escape the conviction that it manifests a plain intention to substitute that tariff act in the place and stead of all prior tariff legislation, so far, at least, as such legislation lays a duty upon imported articles of any kind. The decision of the appraisers is therefore affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kent v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896
- United States v. MurphyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896
- United States v. AllenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1893