Legal Opinion

Shainin v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 19, 1928No. 3070PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraham, Presiding Judge

Lawrence, Groom & Co., brokers at San Francisco, filed nine petitions for remission of duty under section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1922, on behalf of the appellants, I. Shainin & Co. The consumption entries covered by the petitions were numbered 14951, 15602, 16249, 16828, 17557, 371, 958, 1620, and 2227. On hearing before the Customs Court the prayers of these petitions were denied, and the importers have appealed.

The goods imported were various manufactures of brass, such as vases, gongs, foot warmers, etc., and were exported from Shanghai, China. I. Shainin & Co., the appellants, were…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wolf v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  2. Glendenning, McLeish & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. Lee v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Callbeck v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
  2. Kachurin Drug Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939
  3. Taggesell Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API