Brown v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 39549.
1Opinion of the CourtMoNtgomeRy, Presiding Judge
The merchandise in question on this appeal consists of two centrifugal machines, one pump for driving one of the machines and one tank for the same. This merchandise was assessed for duty at 20 per cent ad valorem under the residuary provision for manufactures of metal in paragraph 167 of the tariff act of 1913. It is claimed to be classifiable as machinery for use in the manufacture of sugar under paragraph 391 of the same act. Paragraph 391 reads as follows:
391. Agricultural implements: Plows, tooth and disk harrows, headers, harvesters, reapers, agricultural drills and planters, mowers,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Magone v. HellerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Magone v. WiedererSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- United States v. BokerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
- Cadwalader v. WanamakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Hartranft v. LangfeldSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States v. Snow's United States Sample Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
- Drakenfeld & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
- United States v. Lorsch & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
- Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
- Geo Wm. Rueff, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.