Legal Opinion

Cone v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 22, 1926No. 2713PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraiiam, Presiding Judge

Twelve shipments of palmyra fiber were entered by importers at the port of New York, 11 of the same being under the act of October 3, 1913, and 1, entry No. 751901, being under the Tariff Act of 1922. The collector, in the case of said 11 entries, classified the goods for dutiable purposes under paragraph 385 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, and in case of said entry No. 751901, under paragraph 1459 of the Tariff Act of 1922, as articles manufactured, in whole or in part, not provided for. The importers filed nine protests against those assessments of duty by the collector. Such protests…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Smillie & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
  2. United States v. DudleySupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  3. United States v. SalomonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  4. United States v. StoneCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
  5. United States v. Michelin Tire Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Astoria Pan-Americana, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  2. Rico Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
  3. United States v. MakaroffCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  4. George Beurhaus Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  5. United States v. MakaroffCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926

12 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