Legal Opinion

United States v. Vandegrift

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 12, 1913No. 1024PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29721 (T. D. 32823).

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, Presiding Judge

The merchandise the subject of this controversy is described by the collector of customs as consisting of wool in the weft and cotton *227in the warp and covered on one side by a thin coating of rubber, weighing over four ounces per square yard, and .is generally used in the manufacture of waterproof garments for women. It was returned for duty under paragraph 378 of the act of 1909. The imr porters protested and claimed the merchandise dutiable at 10 cents per square yard and 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 347 as waterproof cloth. The protest was sustained by the board, and the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Gartner v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1907

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kenyon Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
  2. United States v. Chesterton Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. Tausend v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  4. United States v. GoldfrankCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  5. United States v. WalkerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API