Diana v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtBaebeR, Judge
In these cases the merchandise covered by the protests arrived within the limits of the port with intention to unlade before May 27, 1921.
So miich of the importations as are involved in one protest were entered for warehouse before the emergency tariff act of 1921 took effect, none of which was withdrawn from customs custody nor duty paid until after said act became effective.
*291As to that part of the importations covered by the other protest, it was entered for consumption June 1, at which date it was withdrawn from customs custody and duty paid.
The emergency act provided that it should take…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- MEREDITH v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Marriott v. BruneSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- United States v. American Sugar Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1906
- United States v. BurrSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Hartranft v. OliverSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States v. Estate of BoshellCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
- Casazza v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Kee Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- Parfums Corday, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1942
- Sterling Bronze Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.