Legal Opinion

United States v. Miller & Sons

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 19, 1928No. 3101PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHateield, Judge

Merchandise, described in the several invoices as “enameled Tom-bac-shoe-buckles,” and consisting of enameled shoe ornaments of various shapes and designs, composed in part of base metal, was assessed for duty by the collector at 80per centum ad valorem as “articles * * * designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to the person,” under paragraph 1428 of the Tariff Act of 1922, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

Par. 1428. * * * and articles valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to the person, *375s…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. SaksCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Astra Trading Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
  2. United States v. MurphyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  3. Astra Trading Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
  4. United States v. H. Zuckerman Shoe Mfg. Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API