American Smelting & Repining Co. v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge
Certain flue dust imported from Mexico was classified and assessed by the collector as a nonenumerated, unmanufactured article, under *47paragraph 1459 of the Tariff Act of 1922. The appraiser subsequently made a supplemental report stating that it should have been returned at 20 per centum under the same paragraph.
The protest contains several claims, the chief one being that the flue dust is dutiable at 1}4 cents per pound on the lead contained therein, under the provision of paragraph 392 of said act for “lead-bearing ores and mattes of all kinds,” either directly or by similitude.
It is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- American Smelting & Refining Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
- Ringk v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- Standard Varnish Works v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1894
- O. G. Hempstead & Son v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1903
- Shallus v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland · 1907
3Cited by8 opinions
- Philipp Bros. Ore v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
- Reichard Coulston, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
- Werner G. Smith Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
- Meyer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- Samuel Shapiro & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1948
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.