Legal Opinion

United States v. A. W. Fenton Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 30, 1928No. 3085PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

Merchandise known as “insulating beads” and sometimes as “lava beads” and used as electrical insulators was assessed for duty by the collector at the port of Cleveland at 55 per centum ad valorem-under paragraph 218 of the Tariff Act of 1922, the pertinent part of. which reads as follows:.' Par. 218. * * * all articles of every description not specially provided for, composed wholly or in chief value of glass or paste, or combinations of glass and paste, blown or partly blown in the mold or otherwise, or colored, cut, engraved, etched, frosted, gilded, ground (except such grinding as is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Vandegrift v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  2. United States v. American Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Julius Forstmann & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939
  2. Marshall Field & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1940
  3. United States v. Barker Bros.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API