Legal Opinion

Brown v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 1, 1926No. 2686PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

The merchandise involved in this appeal consists of dried, split, nongerminative seeds of the lotus lily. It was assessed for duty by the collector at 35 per centum ad valorem as prepared vegetables, under paragraph 773 of the Tariff Act of 1922, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

Par. 773. Vegetables, if cut, sliced, or otherwise reduced in size, or if parched or roasted, or if pickled, or packed in salt, brine, oil, or prepared or preserved in any other way and not specially provided for; sauces of all kinds, not specially provided for; * * *

*97It is claimed by the appellant that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Nix v. HeddenSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Brown v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  3. Schade & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
  4. Neuman v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
  5. Dutton v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Tower v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1947
  2. Roesling v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1943
  3. John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  4. United States v. Albers Bros. Milling Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  5. Wo Kee v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API