Legal Opinion

Brier Manufacturing Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided December 7, 1950No. C. D. 1286PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise before us consists of pear-shaped glass articles, faceted, which have been pierced through near the apex so that if strung or otherwise suspended they would hang or dangle. They were assessed for duty under paragraph 1503 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as “* * * beads in imitation of precious or semiprecious stones, of all kinds and shapes, of whatever material *198composed” at 45 per centum ad valorem and are claimed properly dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 1528 as “* * * imitation semiprecious stones, faceted * * *” at 20 per centum ad valorem. It is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. Stone & Downer Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Vandegrift v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. Osceola Mill & Elevator Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
  4. Protests 996137-G of Eitinger Bead Co.United States Customs Court · 1942

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Brier Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
  2. Samco, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API