Legal Opinion

Roeller-Struss Co. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 21, 1924No. 2332PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bland, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

Tbe merchandise in question was manufactured by a firm in Denmark and imported by appellant. Tbe collector at St. Louis classified tbe same as a nonenumerated article not otherwise provided for, under paragraph 385 of tbe tariff act of 1913, and assessed a duty at 15 per cent ad valorem. Tbe importer protested, claiming that tbe goods were specifically provided for in tbe free fist under paragraph 399 of tbe act of 1913 as:

Annatto, roucou, roeoa, or Orleans, and all extracts of.

Tbe commodity was invoiced as butter color and was intended to be…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lloyd Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
  2. Pacific Creosoting Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  3. Pierce v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  4. United States v. SchumacherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  5. Ulmann v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. H. W. Robinson Air Freight Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
  2. International Grape Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941
  3. Ditbro Pearl Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1974
  4. La Manna v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API