Legal Opinion

United States v. May Department Stores Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 16, 1927No. 2787PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGkaham, Presiding Judge

The May Department Stores imported at St. Louis a quantity of bead necklaces, which were classified by the collector as jewelry under paragraph 1428 of the Tariff Act of 1922 at 80 per centum ad valorem. The importer protested, claiming the goods to be dutiable at 45 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1403 of said act as beads in imitation of precious or semiprecious stones. An alternative claim is made in the protest under said paragraph as articles composed wholly or in chief value of beads, but this claim is waived by the argument and will not be here considered. The respective…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  2. United States v. Doragon Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  3. United States v. International Forwarding Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  4. United States v. MurphyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  5. United States v. Woolworth Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. United States v. FloryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  2. Finn Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
  3. United States v. MurphyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  4. D. Lisner & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  5. Puerto Rican Handcrafts v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953

6 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