Tower & Sons v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtMaRtiN, Judge
The merchandise now in question was invoiced as “ boiled cider,” and was described by the appraiser as “boiled cider (concentrated apple juice) of the consistency of sirup.”
The collector classified it for duty as a fruit juice or fruit sirup under paragraph 247 of the tariff act of 1913. The paragraph reads as follows:
247. Cherry juice and prune juice, or prune wine, and other fruit juices, and fruit sirup, not specially provided for in this section, containing no alcohol or not more than 18 per centum of alcohol, 70 cents per gallon; if containing more than 18 per centum of alcohol, 70 cents…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hartranft v. WiegmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Nelson J. Elliott v. Samuel SwartwoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1836
- United States v. SchoverlingSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Maddock v. MagoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Arthur v. LaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Nootka Packing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935
- Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1940
- United States v. MurphyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
- Garza v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.