United States v. Ashcroft Mfg. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut. For decision below, see 172 Fed. 449, which affirmed a decision hv the Board of General Appraisers, which had reversed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Bridgeport. The merchandise in question consists of articles of glass which are designated in the record as “prismatic gauge glasses.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut. For decision below, see 172 Fed. 449, which affirmed a decision hv the Board of General Appraisers, which had reversed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Bridgeport. The merchandise in question consists of articles of glass which are designated in the record as “prismatic gauge glasses.” They are about 5% inches long, 1]4 inches wide, and five-eighths of an inch thick. The edges are ground, and one side is plain and polished. The reverse side is also polished, and contains fine…
1Opinion of the CourtNoyes, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The article in question is a “strip” of glass. It is “a narrow piece comparatively long.” Standard Dictionary. While not so ground that any *737sides in themselves form a prism, yet one side is so ground that prismatic forms are produced upon it. The strip of glass, though not a prism, fulfills the functions of one. That is its essential feature. As, then, this article is a strip of glass ground so as to. constitute a prism and possesses optical properties, we think that it is mofe specifically described in paragraph 310, which is among the paragraphs relating…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Burgess Battery Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1947
- Pheoll Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958