Legal Opinion

Vandegrift v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 19, 1927No. 2841PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

Merchandise known as “fish-spine beads,” and consisting of cylinders, perforated concentrically, with one base convexed and the other concaved so that the convexity of one cylinder fits into the concavity of another, used to insulate electrical wires, and composed in chief value of talc or steatite, vitrified, was assessed for duty by the collector at 60 per centum ad valorem as articles of vitrified or semi-vitrified ware under paragraph 212 of the Tariff Act of 1922, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

Par. 212. China, porcelain, and other vitrified wares, including chemical…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bough v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  2. United States v. American Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
  3. American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. United States v. A. W. Fenton Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. Brier Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
  3. Walco Bead Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
  4. General Ceramics Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  5. S. H. Kress & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956

3 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