United States v. Janson Co.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtGraham, Presiding Judge
Certain glass insulators were imported at the port of New York and were classified as manufactures of glass, not specially provided *316for, under paragraph 230 of the Tariff Act of 1922. The importer protested, claiming the goods to be parts of machines, under paragraph 372 of said act, or, alternatively, as parts of articles similar to phonographs, gramophones, or graphophones, under paragraph 1444 of said act. The court below sustained the protest under said paragraph 372, and from that judgment the Government has appealed. But one question, therefore, is here presented: Are these imported…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Corning v. BurdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
- Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. Bosch Magneto Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- United States v. American Steel & Copper Plate Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- United States v. Van Bourgondien Bros.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- H. T. Kennedy Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
- Shell Petroleum Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
- Engis Equipment Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1946
- Agfa Ansco Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1940
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.