Anderson v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Cole, Judge:
In A. Magnano v. United States, 61 Treas. Dee. 1019, T. D. 45672, the record in which case was, without objection, admitted in evidence herein — this court found the evidence sufficient to support the claim of the importer that a commercial designation removed the merchandise in question from the classification applied by the collector under paragraph 717 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, at 2K cents per pound, as' codfish, dried and unsalted. Although the merchandise in that case, known as stockfish, was dried and unsalted codfish according to the overwhelming weight of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bernier v. BernierSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- The MargaretSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Akeroyd v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. SchadeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- Loewenthal v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Arnold Sorensin Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
- Heads & Threads, Division of MSL Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
- Westergaard, Berg-Johnsen Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1946
- P. Silverman & Son v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944