Slazenger v. United States
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
This was an application by Slazenger & Sons for a review of a decision of the board of general appraisers in respect to the classification for duty of certain tennis balls imported by them.
1Opinion of the Court
WHEELER, District Judge.
These are tennis balls of India rubber ¡covered with light felt of wool. The India rubber is shown to have Tocen the component material of chief value, and they appear to have been dutiable under paragraph 352, Act 1894, as claimed by the importer. A description of goods of which India rubber is the component material of chief value seems to be more specific than one of goods of which India rubber is a component material generally, without regard to proportional value. Hartranft v. Meyer, 135 U. S. 237, 10 Sup. Ct. 751. Decision reversed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hartranft v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. SlazengerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1900