Legal Opinion

Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 8, 1918No. 1750PublishedCited by 146 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7938 (T. D. 36577). [Oral argument Oct 17,1917, by Mr. Donihee and Mr. Doherty.]

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, Judge

Steel channel irons, steel bars or grates, and frames, plates, center pieces, posts, and heads or end pieces of cast iron, materials ready to be assembled as parts of a mash filter were classified by the collector of customs at the Port of New York as manufactures of metal not specially provided for. In accordance with that classification the goods were assessed for duty at 20 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 167 of the tariff act of 1913, which paragraph in so far as it is pertinent to the case reads as follows:

Par. 167. Articles or wares not specially provided for in…

2Cited by146 opinions

  1. United States v. FrankCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  2. Durst Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
  3. United States v. BruckmannCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
  4. United States v. Henry L. Exstein Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  5. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954

141 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API