Legal Opinion

United States v. European Watch & Clock Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 25, 1926No. 2623; No. 2632PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSiiith, Judge

Snap fasteners or clasps, attached to ribbon and designed to hold watches on the wrist, were classified by the collector of customs at the port of New York, as materials of metal suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry and assessed with duty at 75 per centum ad valorem under that part of paragraph 1428 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which reads as follows:

Pab. 1428. Jewelry * * * stampings, galleries, mesh, and other materials of metal * * * finished or partly finished, separate or in strips or sheets, suitable for use in the manufacture of any of the foregoing articles in this paragraph,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Fensterer & Ruhe v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
  2. Dingelstedt v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1898
  3. United States v. DowningSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  4. United States v. MurphyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  5. United States v. FieldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API