Legal Opinion
United States v. Murphy
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided January 18, 1926No. 2603PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge
The merchandise involved in this appeal consists of circular brass spring snaps or clasps, not plated with gold, silver, or platinum, and used for the purpose of connecting and fastening the ends of necklaces. They were assessed for duty by the collector at the port of Philadelphia as “metal snaps” used in the manufacture of necklaces and suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry, at 75 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1428 of the Tariff Act of 1922, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:
Par. 1428. Jewelry, * * * stampings, galleries, mesh, and other materials of metal, * * *…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Fensterer & Ruhe v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
- United States v. Wells, Fargo & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
- Dingelstedt v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1898
- United States v. DowningSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- United States v. European Watch & Clock Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. May Department Stores Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
- Glemby's Sons Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. ClarkeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- United States v. European Watch & Clock Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.