Legal Opinion · Dissent
Tower v. United States
United States Customs Court
Decided February 3, 1955No. C. D. 1678Published
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION
Foed, Judge:
From the briefs of counsel and the majority opinion, it is clear that the involved merchandise has been considered as having been classified as a lead ore, rather than as a lead-bearing ore. I readily concede that the involved merchandise is not a lead ore. The question is whether or not the involved merchandise is a lead-bearing ore, not whether it is a lead ore. The collector first classified the involved merchandise as “pyrites,” which counsel have agreed is a sulphur ore, and accorded free entry to such merchandise under paragraph 1777 of the Tariff Act of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Marriott v. BruneSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- American Smelting & Refining Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
- United States v. BrewsterCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1909