Legal Opinion

Reichard Coulston, Inc. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 4, 1946No. 4543Published

1Opinion of the CourtJaceson, Judge

Appellant imported at the port of New York merchandise invoiced as “synthetic red oxide of iron (crude) prepared from Bauxite Residue,” and “synthetic red oxide of iron (calcined bauxite residue).” The collector assessed duty upon the importation at 30 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 214 of Tariff Act of 1930 as “Mfrs. of Mineral Substance * * *.” Paragraph 214 reads as follows:

Par. 214. Earthy or mineral substances wholly or partly manufactured and articles, wares, and materials (crude or advanced in condition), composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances, not…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. SwiftCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  2. Hampton v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  3. United States v. Von OefeleCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
  4. Reichard Coulston, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
  5. Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API