Legal Opinion

United States v. Downing & Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 29, 1926No. 2670PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bland, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of the court:

The appraiser’s answer to the protest is as follows:

The merchandise in question consists of chrome steel tubes, n. s. p. f., and was returned for duty as such at 25 % ad val. under par. 328, and in addition 8 % ad valorem under par. 305, of the act of 1922.

According to the testimony the importation consists of chrome steel tubes which are made of steel containing approximately 1 per centum of carbon and 1)4 per centum of chromium. The merchandise is “commonly called high carbon, high chrome steel tubing,” and is used “to make ball bearings — the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Tide Water Oil Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. United States v. RichterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  3. Ball v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. FrankCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  2. Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. United States v. J. A. Schneider & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934
  4. Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  5. Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API