Legal Opinion

Carr v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 17, 1921No. 2067PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 8364 (T. D. 38474)

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, Judge

Articles invoiced as " auto springs,” "steel springs,” "rear springs,” "front springs,” and "front auto springs,” were classified by the collector of customs at Detroit as finished parts of automobiles and assessed for duty at 30 per cent ad valorem under that part of paragraph 119 of the act of 1913, which reads as follows:

119. * * * automobile chassis, and finished parts of automobiles, not including tires, 30 per centum ad valorem.

The importer protested that the springs were not finished parts of automobiles, and set up as the ground of objection upon which he relied the claim that the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ball v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Harding Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1936
  2. Howland v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  3. Montague Machine Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
  4. Newark Radio Laboratories v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API