Legal Opinion

United States v. Kawahara

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 6, 1927No. 2890PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge

The importation involved in this case is a commodity known as taro flour or “Iconnyalcuko,” sometimes called “IconnyaJcuJca.” As made, the importation included this flour and rapeseed oil, but no question is raised in this appeal as to the latter. The taro flour was classified under paragraph 773 of the Tariff Act of 1922 as prepared vegetables and assessed at 35 per centum ad valorem. It is claimed to be dutiable at 20 per centum ad valorem as a nonenumer-ated manufactured article under paragraph 1459 of the act.

Paragraph 773, so far as material, provides for “vegetables, if cut, sliced, or…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. Cerecedo Hermanos Y CompañiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. Latimer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  3. Komada & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  4. Stein v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  5. United States v. PostCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Martel Food Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1945
  2. United States v. Gallagher & AscherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  3. Westergaard v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
  4. Gonzalez v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1940
  5. E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953

11 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