United States v. Cummings
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. Appeal by ihe United States from a decision of the board of United States general appraisers. The imported merchandise consisted of waste pieces of cloth, left over in the; manufacture of waterproof garments, from which, after importation, the rubber could be extracted and utilized. It could also be used in the manufacture of roofing paper.
Read the full summary
At Law. Appeal by ihe United States from a decision of the board of United States general appraisers. The imported merchandise consisted of waste pieces of cloth, left over in the; manufacture of waterproof garments, from which, after importation, the rubber could be extracted and utilized. It could also be used in the manufacture of roofing paper. The collector classified it under paragraph 388 (26 Stat. 595). The importers sought a review by the board of general appraisers. The board sustained their protest, reversed the collector, and decided it was dutiable under paragraph 472. The…
1Opinion of the Court
WHEELER, District Judge.
This importation was of waste pieces of cloth, composed of wool, cotton, and rubber, left over from the manufacture of waterproof garments. The wool cannot be profitably separated from the rubber. It was classified by the board of United States appraisers as “waste, not specially provided for,” under paragraph 472 of the tariff act of 1890. But paragraph 388 provided for a duty on noils, shoddy, top waste, stubbing waste, roving waste, ring waste, yarn waste, gametted waste, and all other wastes composed wholly or in part of wool. 'This waste is composed in part of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Robertson v. PerkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
3Cited by2 opinions
- Downing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
- P. Silverman & Son v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1940