Legal Opinion

United States v. Hillier's Son Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 29, 1926No. 2728PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

The merchandise involved in this appeal is scammony resin. It was assessed for duty by the collector under paragraph 5 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which reads as follows:

Par. 6. All chemical elements, all.chemieal salts and compounds, all medicinal preparations, and all combinations and mixtures of any of the foregoing, all the foregoing obtained naturally or artificially and not specially provided for,. 25 per centum ad valorem.

It was claimed in the protest and held by the Board of General Appraisers to be free of duty under the provision for “resins, not specially provided for,” contained in…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. United States v. BokerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  2. Togasaki v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  3. United States v. Ducommun Hardware Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  4. United States v. IrwinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  5. Vandiver v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. United States v. A. W. Faber, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  2. Factor v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  3. Synthetic Patents Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1943
  4. United States v. Yaedley & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  5. Western Importing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969

22 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