Legal Opinion

United States v. American Steel & Copper Plate Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 22, 1926No. 2716PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraham, Presiding Judge

The goods imported in this case are technically known as halftone screens. They were classified and returned for duty as articles not specially provided for, composed wholly or in chief value of glass, at 55 per centum ad valorem, under paragraph 218 of the Tariff Act of 1922. They were claimed to be dutiable, in the protest, at 20 per centum ad valorem, as parts of photographic cameras, under paragraph 1453 of said act, or, in the alternative, as manufactures of glass, not specially provided for, at 50 per centum ad valorem, under paragraph 230 of said act. The court below sustained the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. Bosch Magneto Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  2. United States v. Kalter Mercantile Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1923
  3. Welte v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
  4. Durbrow & Hearne Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
  5. Schoverling, Daly & Gales v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1906

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Manca, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  2. Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  3. Motorola, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  4. United States v. Janson Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  5. United States v. Willoughby Camera Stores, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933

42 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