Legal Opinion

United States v. Michelin Tire Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 24, 1911No. 204PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Transeerbed from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York, Abstract 22658 (T. D. 30339).

1Opinion of the CourtDe Yries, Judge

Appeal to the United States Circuit Court for the Southern Dis-; trict of New York duly transferred to this court.

The controversy is over the proper classification of so-called' “reclaimed or recovered rubber.” In some of the cases covered by this appeal the collector had classified the merchandise for duty under the provisions of paragraph 449 of the tariff act of 1897, as “manufactures of india rubber.”

The material parts of that paragraph are:

449 Manufactures of bone, * * * india-rubber, * * * or of which these substances or either of them is the component material of chief value, not…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. IshamSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  2. Hartranft v. WiegmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  3. United States v. SalomonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  4. Cadwalader v. Jessup & Moore Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. United States v. Sheldon & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  2. Cone v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. Hampton v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  4. J. Milton Hagy Waste Works v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
  5. O'Connor-Harrison v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927

12 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