Legal Opinion

Schoverling v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 29, 1916No. 1632PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 38257.

1Opinion of the CourtDe Vries, Judge

These importations were of policemen’s whistles. They were rated for duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York as articles valued at over 20 cents per dozen pieces, composed in chief value of metal and designed to be carried on or about or attached to the person, under the provisions of paragraph 356 of the tariff act of 1913. The importers protested and are the appellants here. They make claim that the merchandise is properly dutiable as articles or wares composed .wholly or in chief value of metal under the provisions of paragraph 167 of the act.

Upon the authority of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  2. United States v. SussfeldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  3. Bischoff v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  4. United States v. MalhamiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  5. United States v. American Bead Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. KressCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  2. Kresge Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
  3. Protest 963095-G of M. & P. Importing Co.United States Customs Court · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API