Legal Opinion

Ringk v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 3, 1925No. 2498PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge

As heard by the Board of General Appraisers, the protests in this case involved the classification of cellophane in two different conditions, one, in sheets some 24 by 36 inches or 36 by 39 inches and 0.001 inch in thickness.

*127The other was in strips many hundreds of yards in length, 2 hi inches in width, and from 0.00175 to 0.0025 inch in thickness. As imported, these strips are wound in rolls on cardboard cops, each roll being from 9 to 12 inches in diameter.

The collector classified all the merchandise under paragraph 319 of the tariff act of 1913, either directly or by similitude to yarns,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pickhardt v. MerrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Murphy v. ArnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. Arthur v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  4. Isler v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
  5. Nevin v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Empire Brushes, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  2. J. M. P. R. Trading Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  3. Roovers Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1949
  4. American Smelting & Repining Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  5. Beauti-Vue Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967

11 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