United States v. Swift
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
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
- Willits & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1923
- United States v. Wakem & McLaughlin (Inc.)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- Taylor v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- Darling & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
- Downing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- International Models, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
- Wilbur-Ellis & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
- Tribune Publishing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
- Bangor & Aroostook Railroad v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
- De Freest v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.