United States v. Baxter
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Appeals from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 8182 (T. D. 37698). [Oral argument Jan. 16,1919, by Mr. Isenschmid and Mr. Lane.]
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, Presiding Judge
These two cases were heard together in this court. The record is the same in both cases except that in case number 1932 the poles were invoiced as cedar telegraph poles, whereas in the other case they were not specifically so designated. As a matter of fact the merchandise imported consisted either of poles or piles, certain items being invoiced as cedar poles and other items as cedar piles. In. these entries, the cedar piles were returned by the appraiser free of duty. The poles were assessed for duty under paragraph 170 of the act of 1913, reading as follows:
Paving posts, railroad ties, and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. HempsteadCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
- United States v. PierceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1906
- Richard v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
- United States v. MyersCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- United States v. PierceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont · 1905
3Cited by7 opinions
- Fontana Hollywood Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
- Tower v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
- Pistorino & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
- Mitchell Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
- R. P. Oldham Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1952
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.