United States v. Doragon Co.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtGraham, Presiding Judge
Eleven shipments of merchandise under the Tariff Act of 1922 are involved here. On the hearing before the Board of General Appraisers, the following stipulation was entered into by counsel:
It is stipulated that the merchandise in the following schedule is of the character stated therein:
Protest 972394, Doragon Co., bone bead necklaces with bone clasps.
Protest 972395, Saji & Kariya Co., bone bead necklaces with bone clasps.
Protest 968908, Yamato, same as above.
Protest 968916, B. H. Dyas Corporation, ivory pendants with pierced hole and ivory roses.
Protest 968920, A. Hamburger’s Sons, ivory…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Robertson v. SalomonSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Marvel v. MerrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Sonn v. MagoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
- Stein v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- United States v. May Department Stores Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. Ben Felsenthal & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. FloryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
- Mohawk Iron & Steel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
- United States v. May Department Stores Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.