Legal Opinion

United States v. Swift

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 29, 1926No. 2732PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hatfield, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of the court;

The merchandise involved in this appeal is ground “tankage.” It was assessed for duty by the collector as a nonenumerated manufactured article, at 20 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1459 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which reads as follows:

Pab. 1459. That there shall be levied, collected, and paid on the importation of all raw or unmanufactured articles not enumerated or provided for, a duty of 10 per centum ad valorem, and on all articles manufactured, in whole or in part, not specially provided for, a duty of 20 per centum ad valorem.

It…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Willits & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1923
  2. United States v. Wakem & McLaughlin (Inc.)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  3. Taylor v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
  4. Darling & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
  5. Downing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. International Models, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
  2. Wilbur-Ellis & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
  3. Tribune Publishing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  4. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
  5. De Freest v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965

13 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