Faber v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK. This case raises the question as to whether Cuban imports are entitled to a reduction of twenty per cent upon the rates charged on goods coming from the Philippine Islands, or only twenty per cent upon the regular tariff rates on goods imported from foreign countries.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK. This case raises the question as to whether Cuban imports are entitled to a reduction of twenty per cent upon the rates charged on goods coming from the Philippine Islands, or only twenty per cent upon the regular tariff rates on goods imported from foreign countries. The Tariff Act of July 24, 1897, lays a duty on cigars of $4.50 per pound and twenty-five per cent ad valorem; ‘ The act of March 8, 1902, § 2, c. 140, 32 Stat., 54, to raise revenue for the Philippine Islands, provides that there shall be…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Lamar
Article 2 of the Convention with Cuba provides that the products of that island shall be admitted into the United States at a reduction of twenty per cent of the rates of duty in the Tariff of 1897, or tariff laws subsequently enacted. There is much force in the suggestion that the reduction is limited to the rates of duty in general tariff acts, and does not apply to special rates under special agreements with other countries. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190. This point, however, we purposely leave open and limit our consideration to the principal question discussed in the brief, whether…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Whitney v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- De Lima v. BidwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- United States v. Heinszen & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina Board of AgricultureSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Dooley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Hooven & Allison Co. v. EvattSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- M. H. Pulaski Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
- State v. BarlowUtah Supreme Court · 1944
- United States v. Cronkhite Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.