Legal Opinion

United States v. Larzelere

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 24, 1915No. 1500PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7646 (T. D. 34932).

1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge

Thé merchandise here is described as split rattan cut into lengths of about 12 inches. It was returned for duty as' an unenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 385 of the act of 1913, and so assessed.

*274Respecting the manner of its production and its use the evidence shows that rattan is run through a machine which strips off the bark and cuts it into lengths. It is then packed in bales and is exclusively used in the manufacture of street sweepers’ brooms. The length or diameter of the rattan when inserted in the machine is not stated, nor is it shown into how many parts it is split by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rattan & Cane Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  2. R. Brauss & Co. v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1903

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Nurserymen's Exchange v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  2. Atkins, Kroll & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  3. Atkins, Kroll & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  4. Pacific Mutual Sales Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API