Legal Opinion

United States v. Brown

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 14, 1925No. 2511PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraham, Presiding Judge

The merchandise in this case is admittedly fish sounds, cleaned and split, imported at various dates in 1922 and 1923, after the Tariff Act of 1922 became effective. It was returned for duty at 25 per centum ad valorem as “fish sounds, cleaned, split, or otherwise prepared,” under the following provision of paragraph 42 of the Tariff Act of 1922:

Casein glue, agar agar, isinglass, and’’other fish sounds, cleaned, split, or otherwise prepared, and manufactures, wholly or in chief value of gelatin, glue or glue size, 25 per centum ad valorem. .•

The importers claim the goods in question to be…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. Brown & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. BrownCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
  2. Frei Art Glass Co. v. UnitedCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. Rice Millers' Ass'n v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  4. Alfred Kohlberg, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
  5. United States v. Pew Fisheries Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API