Legal Opinion

United States v. Emrich

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided July 3, 1925No. 2545PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge

In this case the Government appealed from the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers, which sustained the protest of the importers to the dutiable classification as jewelry, at 80 per centum ad valorem, under paragraph 1428 of the Tariff Act of 1922, of strings of pure amber beads.

The beads were graduated and strung on strings of necklace length, the strings being of mercerized silk, tied at each .end, and *200without a clasp. In the importers’ protest it was contended that they should have been assessed under paragraph 1438, as manufactures of amber, not specially provided for, at 20 per…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  2. United States v. Doragon Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  3. United States v. International Forwarding Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  4. Rozelaar v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  5. Littauer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. FloryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  2. United States v. WanamakerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. United States v. Lamport Export Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  4. Protest 116063-K of LeightonUnited States Customs Court · 1946
  5. United States v. Fred Frankel & SonsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API