United States v. Park
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28017 (T. D. 32346).
1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge
The merchandise here involved is described in the invoice and the importers’ protest as “night lights” and in the deputy appraiser’s *351answer to the protest as “short, thick tapers, commercially known as night lights, composed of cotton wick and paraffin,'each taper having a metal plate covering the bottom of the wick and being incased in a paper cup.” Samples of the merchandise are before us and seem to have been correctly described by the deputy appraiser. They were held dutiable as tapers at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 436 of the tariff act of 1909.
Various claims were made in the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Davies v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- United States v. GodillotCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
- United States v. Danker & MarstonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. Maine Central RailroadCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
- United States v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- United States v. McQuadeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- Stegemann v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- United States v. CoccaroCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.