Legal Opinion

United States v. Yaedley & Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 16, 1929No. 3090PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraham, Presiding Judge

Soap reduced to a powdered form was imported at the port of New York and was classified as toilet soap under paragraph 82 of the Tariff Act of 1922. The importer protested, claiming the goods to be dutiable as soap powder or as all other soap under said paragraph 82. There was also an alternative claim as a not enumerated manufactured article under paragraph 1459 of said act. The customs court sustained the protest, finding the imported material to be “all other soap * * * not specially provided for.” The Government has appealed.

Said paragraph 82 is as follows:

Pab. 82. Soap: Castile, 15 per…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. Hillier's Son Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  2. Aetna Explosives Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
  3. Moore v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
  4. Quaintance v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  2. Chemical Specialties Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  3. Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  4. Sandoz, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  5. American Shipping Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932

2 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