United States v. Bird
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtGraham, Presiding Judge
An article invoiced as “one antique Chinese silk rug” and entered as an “oriental rug — artistic antiquities” was imported at New York and was classified by the collector for duty as an oriental rug under paragraph 1116 of the Tariff Act of 1922. Accompanying the entry were the certificate and affidavit of the seller and the owner, in attempted compliance with the customs regulations, hereinafter more particularly referred to. The importer protested, claiming the goods to be free of duty as artistic antiquities under paragraph 1708 of said act.
On the hearing before the Customs Court three…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gump Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
- Kronfeld v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- United States v. ThomasCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
- Martin v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
- McBride v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Wormser v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
- Brummer Gallery, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
- Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
- Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1947
- Harvard University v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.