Hague v. United States
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
Appeal by the importers, A. J. Hague & Co., from a decision of the board of general appraisers which sustained the action of the collector in assessing duty upon the merchandise in question under paragraph 263 of “Schedule I, Cotton Manufactures,” of the act of August, 27,1894 (28 Stat. 529). That paragraph, so far as it relates to the present controversy is as follows: “Cords * * * made of cotton or other vegetable fiber, and whether composed in part of India rubber or…
Read the full summary
Appeal by the importers, A. J. Hague & Co., from a decision of the board of general appraisers which sustained the action of the collector in assessing duty upon the merchandise in question under paragraph 263 of “Schedule I, Cotton Manufactures,” of the act of August, 27,1894 (28 Stat. 529). That paragraph, so far as it relates to the present controversy is as follows: “Cords * * * made of cotton or other vegetable fiber, and whether composed in part of India rubber or otherwise, forty-five per centum ad valorem.” The importers insist that the merchandise should have been assessed as a…
1Opinion of the CourtCoxe, District Judge
(after stating the facts). Paragraph 263 of the act of 1894 is substituted for paragraph 354 of the act of 1890. After enumerating a number of articles made of cotton, paragraph 354 contained the following words, “Any of the foregoing which are elastic or nonelastic, forty percentum ad valorem.” Ooniioversy soon arose regarding article's similar to those now in question, and the court, being of the opinion that cotton webbing could be made elastic without the presence of India rubber, reversed the decision of the hoard assessing webbing containing India rubber under paragraph 354. At the same…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hartranft v. SheppardSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- United States v. ShattuckCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1894
- In re ShattuckU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kenyon Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- Calhoun v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1901