Legal Opinion

Bush v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided January 21, 1927No. 2782PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

The merchandise involved in this appeal is described in the invoices as chemically prepared fertilizer. It was imported in the form of tablets. It was assessed for duty by the collector at 25 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 23 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which reads as follows:

Par. 23. Chemicals, drugs, medicinal and similar substances, whether dutiable or free, when imported in capsules, pills, tablets, lozenges, troches, ampoules, jubes, or similar forms, including powders put up in medicinal doses, shall be dutiable at not less than 25 per centum ad valorem.

It is claimed to be free of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. StoneCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  2. United States v. VitelliCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
  3. United States v. ScheringCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1903

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. Milnor, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  2. Ross-Smith v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  3. United States v. Sandoz Chemical WorksCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  4. Ellison v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  5. Roerig v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API