Legal Opinion

Toledo Shipbuilding Co. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 13, 1918No. 1871PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 41244. [Oral argument Apr. IS, 1918, by Mr. Sharretts and Mr. Hanson.]

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, Judge

Six imported marine engines were classified by the collector of customs at Cleveland, Ohio, as articles of metal and assessed for duty at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 167 of the tariff act of 1913, which paragraph, in so far as pertinent, reads as follows:

Articles or wares not specially provided for in this section; * * * if composed wholly or in chief value of iron, steel, lead, copper, brass, nickel, pewter, zinc, aluminum, or- other metal, * * * and whether partly or wholly manufactured, 20 per centum ad valorem.

The importers protested that the engines were not dutiable and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. OuterbridgeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Southwestern Shipbuilding Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  2. Johnson Iron Works Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
  3. Warner v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API