United States v. Clay Adams Co.

Two cases of imported merchandise, invoiced, respectively, as “Projektionsappaarate” and “Projektionsapparate,” were described by the appraiser as follows:

The merchandise is described on the invoice as projektions apparatus and consists of projection apparatuses. It was returned for duty at 45% ad val. under the provision for such merchandise in par. 228 (b), act of 1930.

The merchandise was assessed for duty at 45 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 228 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930. The importer protested such classification, and the chief claim made as to the dutiable status of such…