United States v. Mandel Bros.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 43104. [Oral argument Oct. 14,1919, by Mr. Hanson].
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, Presiding Judge
The merchandise involved was assessed for duty by the collector “as returned by the appraiser”- as jewelry, under paragraph 356, act of 1913. The protest claimed the goods dutiable as manufactures of bone, the return showing the articles to be articles of bone. The board sustained the protest and ordered reliquid'ation, holding the goods properly dutiable as manufactures of bone under paragraph 368 of the act. The sole question in the case is whether .there was evidence before the board to justify the conclusion reached. '
The only evidence as to the character of the imported articles is the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Swan v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
- Schmieder v. BarneySupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- National Hat Pin Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. Doragon Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- United States v. International Forwarding Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- United States v. DarlingCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
- Friedman v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
- United States v. Doragon Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.