In re Solvay Process Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York
On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of General Appraisers. This case involves the question of the sufficiency of a protest against the assessment of duty on imported merchandise, and requires a construction of section 14, Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 36 Stat. 136 [U. S. Comp.
Read the full summary
On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of General Appraisers. This case involves the question of the sufficiency of a protest against the assessment of duty on imported merchandise, and requires a construction of section 14, Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 36 Stat. 136 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933], which provides that a protest against the assessment of duty by a collector of customs must set forth “distinctly and specifically * * * the reasons for” the importer’s obj ections to 'the assessment. This is an appeal by the Solvay Process Company for a review of…
1Opinion of the Court
RAY, District Judge.
This court follows the decision of Townsend, Circuit Judge, in Wing et al. v. U. S. (C. C.) 119 Fed. 479, holding that the merchandise in question is dutiable under subdivision 87, § 1, Schedule B, c. 11, of the Tariff Act of 1897, 30 Stat. 155 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1632], as “fire brick, weighing not more than ten pounds each, not glazed, enameled, ornamented or decorated,” but cannot apply that decision to this case, for the reason that the protest is insufficient to raise the question. The protest says:
“We hereby protest against your decision and assessment of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. SalambierSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Herrman v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- In re Guggenheim Smelting Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1901
- In re Collector of CustomsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1893
- United States v. H. Bayersdorfer & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- Beacon Cycle & Supply Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1978
- Mitsubishi International Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1977
- Eac Engineering, Div. of East Asiatic Co., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1985
- Asam Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956