Legal Opinion

Knauth v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 12, 1913No. 1032PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7393 (T. I). 32829).

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, Judge

The merchandise involved in this case consists of paper intended to be applied to glass windowpanes to give them the appearance of stained glass. It bears the trade name of wmdowphanie paper.

*12The article was assessed for duty by the'collector under the classification of "papers with coated surface or surfaces not specially provided for * * *, printed,” at 5 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 411 of the tariff act of 1909.

The importers filed their protest against the assessment, claiming the merchandise to be dutiable as "papers * * * with the surface decorated or…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Marr Duplicator Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
  2. Bendix Paper Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
  3. Erskine v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934
  4. Marr Duplicator Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
  5. United States v. Duratex Stencil Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API