Bailey v. Cadwalader
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
At Law. This suit arose concerning the classification of East India Bombay hemp, under Tariff Index, (New,) par. 331, and was brought by John T. Bailey to recover certain customs duties alleged to have been improperly exacted in an importation which was invoiced as East India Bombay hemp, whereon a duty at $25 per ton was assessed under paragraph 381, Id., relating to hemp, manilla, and other like substances for-hemp, not specially enumerated or provided for.
Read the full summary
At Law. This suit arose concerning the classification of East India Bombay hemp, under Tariff Index, (New,) par. 331, and was brought by John T. Bailey to recover certain customs duties alleged to have been improperly exacted in an importation which was invoiced as East India Bombay hemp, whereon a duty at $25 per ton was assessed under paragraph 381, Id., relating to hemp, manilla, and other like substances for-hemp, not specially enumerated or provided for. Protest and appeal was made that it was not the hemp of commerce, nor commercially known as such, and that it should be entered at $15…
1Opinion of the Court
McKennan, J.,
(charging jury.) This suit is brought by the importer of an article, a sample of which you have had before you, to recover what is claimed by him to have been an excess of duties charged by the custom-house of Philadelphia on that article, upon the hypothesis that a duty was imposed upon this article of $25 a ton as hemp, whereas it should have been charged with a duty only of $15 a ton under another clause of the act of congress. The duty was paid under protest, and the plaintiff here has qualified himself to bring this suit to recover this exaction by the custom-house if the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gimbel Bros., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
- Gimbel Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952