Legal Opinion

Comstock v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 17, 1925No. 2403PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bland, Judge,

delivered-the opinion of the court:

The importation bears the trade name of “Kronos titanium.” It is titanium oxide in physical combination with barium sulphate, and is used as a pigment in compounding paints. It-was classified by the collector under paragraph 91 of the tariff act of 1922. The Board of General Appraisers, in a very clear and well written opinion by Judge McClelland, affirmed the decision of the collector.

Paragraph 91 is as follows:

Titanium potassium oxalate, and all compounds and mixtures containing titanium, 30 per centum ad valorem. (Italics ours.)

*504The importers…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Drakenfeld & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
  2. Drakenfeld & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  3. United States v. SiegleCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Industrial Operations, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
  2. United States v. PealtzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  3. Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  4. Vandegrift Forwarding Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  5. Murphy & Stevenson (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API