Legal Opinion · Dissent

Furida, Inc. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 5, 1934No. 3767Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Garrett, Judge:

The first construction by this court of the language now contained in paragraph 1121 of the Tariff Act of 1930 seems to have been made in the cases (two cases being heard together) of Crimmins & Pierce et al. v. United States and United States v. Ringk & Co., 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 137, 141, T. D. 35392, where after stating that the purpose of the paragraph (par. 304 of the 1913 act) “is, of course, to include within the paragraphs [various paragraphs of the wool schedule of said 1913 act] and at the rates of duty therein prescribed all similar materials”, the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Crimmins v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  2. Bloomingdale Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917

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

Powered by the Exa API