Legal Opinion

R. Brauss & Co. v. United States

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Decided February 7, 1903No. 3,292PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WHEELER, District Judge.

These are bundles of split bamboo, about 12 inches long, intended for use in making brooms, and have been assessed for duty as “manufactures of wood,” under paragraph 208 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11 (30 Stat. 168 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1647]), as against bamboo, in the phrase “bamboo, rattan, reeds unmanufactured,” in paragraph 700 (30 Stat. 202 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1689]), as part of the free list. If “unmanufactured” does not reach back and include bamboo, these bundles are clearly in the free list, for they contain nothing but bamboo. If it does, it…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. DudleySupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. Frazee v. MoffittU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1882

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. LarzelereCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  2. United States v. SteebCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  3. Protests 987082-G (A) of Hub Floral Mfg. Co.United States Customs Court · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API