Legal Opinion

United States v. Stone

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 4, 1925No. 2524PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHateield, Judge

The merchandise involved in this appeal was invoiced as “ tanned russet hides.” It was assessed for duty by the collector at 20 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1431 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which provides as follows:

Par. 1431. Chamois skins, pianoforte, pianoforte-action, player-piano-action leather, enameled upholstery leather, bag, strap, case, football, and glove leather, finished, in the white or in the crust, and seal, sheep, goat, and calf leather dressed, and finished, other than shoe leather, 20 per centum ad valorem.

It is claimed to be free of duty under paragraph 1606 of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Vandiver v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  2. United States v. ReddenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  3. Esposito v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. Kaufman & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  2. Bush v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. United States v. Foochow Importing Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  4. United States v. GreshamCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
  5. United States v. Halle Bros.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932

2 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