Durbrow & Hearne Manufacturing Co. v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 8212 (T. D. 37830). [Oral argument Mar. 26, 1919, by Mr. Levett and Mr. Baldwin.]
1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge
Paragraph 441 of the tariff act of 1913 extends the favor of free entry to “sewing machines * * * whether imported in whole or in parts, including repair parts.” Paragraph 165 provides for a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem upon “embroidering machines” and the main question here is under which of these two paragraphs certain machines hereinafter described are to be classified.
The importer claims under paragraph 441 and alternatively under paragraph 167, providing for articles composed wholly or in chief value of steel or other metal, but in view of the conclusion we reach it becomes unnecessary…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sloane v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
- Woodruff & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
3Cited by11 opinions
- Clutsom Machines, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1948
- United-Carr Fastener Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- Janex Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1978
- Durbrow v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1923
- Giddings & Lewis Machine Tool Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.