Rice & Co. v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 43391. [Ora! argument Mar. 26,1920, by Mr. Tompkins and Mr. Hanson ]
1Opinion of the Court
Martin, Judge,
delivered the- opinion of the court:
The merchandise in this case consists of certain dried and dyed immortelles. They were assessed with duty at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem as artificial and ornamental flowers, under paragraph 347 of the tariff act of 1913.
The importers protested against the assessment, claiming the merchandise to be dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem, "under the first clause of paragraph 210, as palms or cut flowers, preserved or fresh.” The protests, it should be noted, contained no specific reference to the similitude provisions of the act…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Arthur v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Schell's Executors v. FauchéSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Greely's Administrator v. BurgessSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Carter v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
- Bayersdorfer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. Post Fish Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- R. U. Delapenha & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
- United States v. BarrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
- Aronoff Galleries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1938
- Thompson Hayward Chemical Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1946
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.