Vantine & Co. v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 8250 (T. D. 38612). [Oral argument Oct. 10, 1919, by Mr. Edward P. Sharretts and Mr. Hanson.]
1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge
This case involves two protests, 850436 and 850555.
The merchandise is chinaware. The question is whether it is classifiable under paragraph 79 or 80 of the tariff act of 1913. We quote the material parts of each paragraph:
79. Earthenware and crockery ware composed of a nonvitrified absorbent body, including white granite and semiporcelain earthenware * * *.
80. China and porcelain wares composed of a vitrified nonabsorbent body which when broken shows a vitrified or vitreous, or semivitrified or semivitreous fracture, and all bisque and parían wares ***.-
*292There are different rates of duty under…
2Cited by2 opinions
- General Ceramics Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
- General Ceramics Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962