Maldonado & Co. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. For decision below, see 172 Fed. 170, in which the Circuit Court affirmed decisions by the Board of United States General Appraisers, which had affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. The importations in dispute had been classified as manufactures of metal under Tariff Act July 24, 3897, c. 11, § 1, par. 198, 30 Stat. 167 (U. S. Comp.
Read the full summary
Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. For decision below, see 172 Fed. 170, in which the Circuit Court affirmed decisions by the Board of United States General Appraisers, which had affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. The importations in dispute had been classified as manufactures of metal under Tariff Act July 24, 3897, c. 11, § 1, par. 198, 30 Stat. 167 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645), against the importers’ contention for classification under the provision in paragraph 135, 30 Stat. 361…
1Per curiam
In these two case's, arising under the tariff act of 1897, the articles imported are, respectively, steel calks, for insertion in horseshoes, and ball bearings, consisting of raceways and balls, for use in automobiles. Nothing needs to be done to either to fit it for immediate use. The calk is merely screwed into the threaded hole provided in the shoe; the ball bearing is merely assembled with the *738other parts to make up an automobile. We are satisfied that both are covered by our recent decision in Morris & Co. v. U. S., 174 Fed. 656 (Dec. 7, 1909), and not to be included within the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Theodore W. Morris & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909