Crimmins v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Appeals from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36761 (T. D. 34865) and G. A. 7649 (T. D. 34997).
1Opinion of the CourtDe Vries, Judge
Two appeals from two decisions of the Board of General Appraisers. In United States v. A. H. Ringk & Co. the merchandise was returned *138as consisting of “short pieces of mohair waste from slivers and are picked and carded again for further use.” In Crimmins & Pierce et al. v. United States the merchandise was returned as “mohair noils.” In each case they were assessed by the collector for duty as “waste not specially provided for” under the provisions of paragraph 384 of the tariff act of 1913, reading—
384. Waste, not specially provided for in this section, 10 per centum ad valorem.
They are…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hollender v. MagoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Wilson v. SpauldingUnited States Circuit Court · 1884
- Hormann, Schutte & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907
3Cited by17 opinions
- United States v. American Shipping Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- Central Vermont Railway Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
- Bloomingdale Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
- United States v. International Milling Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- Rosenberg v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.