Osceola Mill & Elevator Co. v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtMartiN, Judge
The merchandise is described in the invoices as “rye middlings.” It is also known as “ rye shorts,” the two names being interchangeable. Importation was made at the ports of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and of Pembina, N. Dak.
*140Duty was assessed upon it at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem, as a nonenumerated manufactured article, under paragraph 385 of the tariff act of 1913.
The importers protested against the assessment, claiming free entry under the classification of rye flour contained in paragraph 589 of the free list of that act, which reads as follows:
589. (Free list.) Rye and rye flour.
The…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Cerecedo Hermanos Y CompañiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- United States v. HealeySupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Robertson v. DowningSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- United States v. G. Falk & BrotherSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Komada & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. Bassichis Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- Bache & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
- Brier Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
- H. Reeve Angel & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
- United States v. Compania Azucarera Del Camuy, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957