Legal Opinion

Starkey v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided March 4, 1941No. C. D. 444PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Keefe, Judge:

In these suits tbe plaintiffs seek to recover certain customs duties alleged to have been illegally assessed by the collector at New York upon merchandise invoiced as amorphous plumbago dust or carbon dust. Duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 30 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 213 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as crystalline dust graphite. The plaintiffs claim that the merchandise is properly dutiable under the same paragraph at 10 per centum ad valorem as amorphous graphite or plumbago.

The paragraph of the Tariff Act of 1930 under consideration provides as follows:

Par.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cadwalader v. ZehSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. The MargaretSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  3. United States v. Goldberg's SonsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  4. Austin v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
  5. Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. S.G.B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979
  2. Protest 24739-K of VandegriftUnited States Customs Court · 1941
  3. Protest 27348-K of T. D. Downing Co.United States Customs Court · 1941
  4. Protest 42651-K of T. D. Downing Co.United States Customs Court · 1941
  5. Protest 56361-K of Davies, Turner & Co.United States Customs Court · 1941

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API