In re Dieckerhoff
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. This was an appeal hy the collector of customs at the port of New York for a review of the decision of the board of United States general appraisers, reversing the decision of the said collector In the classification for duty oí certain merchandise imported in the early part of the year 1891, and which was classified for duty by the collector as “cotton trimmings,” and duty thereon assessed at 60 per cent, ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 373 of the…
Read the full summary
At Law. This was an appeal hy the collector of customs at the port of New York for a review of the decision of the board of United States general appraisers, reversing the decision of the said collector In the classification for duty oí certain merchandise imported in the early part of the year 1891, and which was classified for duty by the collector as “cotton trimmings,” and duty thereon assessed at 60 per cent, ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 373 of the tariff act of October 1, 1S90, which contains an enumeration ot “‘trimmings ⅞ ⅜ ⅜ composed of flax, jute, cotton, or other…
1Opinion of the Court
COXE, District Judge,
(orally.) The question in this case was fairly stated by the' district attorney, to be whether or not the importations are “braids” or “trimmings;” whether or not- they were commercially known in this market as “braids,” at the time of the passage of the tariff act of 1890. I do not understand that it is seriously contended on the part of the district attorney that upon the proof before the board of appraisers, a mistake was made in the finding, that they were commercially known as “braids.” If, however, it is so contended, it seems to me that the contention can have no…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Baruch v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909
- Baruch v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1907