United States v. Trorlicht, Duncker Carpet Co.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 8314 (T. D. 38236). [Oral argument Nov. 5, 1920, by Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Sharretts.]
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, Judge
Rugs made of chenille, classified by the collector of customs as Axminster rugs and carpets woven whole for rooms, were assessed *255for duty at 50 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 300 of the tariff act of 1913, which is as follows:
300. Carpets of every description, woven whole for rooms, and Oriental, Berlin, Aubusson, Axminster, and similar rugs, 50 per centum ad valorem.
The importers protested that the goods were neither rugs of the kind enumerated in paragraph 300 nor carpets woven whole for rooms within the meaning of that provision, but that they were chenille rugs,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Beuttell v. MagoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Beuttell v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. Vandegrift & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922