Legal Opinion

Markell v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 16, 1929No. 3123PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlaNd, Judge

The issue presented in this case is solely confined to the proper construction of paragraph 1456 of the Tariff Act of 1922, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:

Par. 1456. Umbrellas, parasols, and sunshades covered with material other than paper or lace, not embroidered or appliquéd, 40 per centum ad valorem; * * *.

Merchandise, imported from Hong Kong, China, described on the invoices as paper parasols, bamboo parasols, and bamboo umbrellas, *519were assessed for duty at 45 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 407 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which-reads in part as follows:

Par. 407. * *…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. MassinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. United States v. StoneCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  3. Stoeger v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  4. Bough v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  5. Lehn & Fink Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Simon v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  2. F. L. Smidth & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  3. Whelan v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  4. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
  5. C. B. Smith Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970

14 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