Legal Opinion

Thomas Co. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided December 17, 1924No. 2420PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

The merchandise involved in this appeal consists .of microscopic slides and cover glasses. Both the slides and cover glasses were assessed for duty by the collector as mountings for microscopes, *426at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 228 of the tariff act of 1922, which reads as follows:

Par. 228. Azimuth mirrors, sextants, and octants; photographic and projection lenses, opera and field glasses, telescopes, microscopes, and other optical instruments, and frames and mountings for the same; all the foregoing not specially provided for, 45 per centum ad valorem.

It is claimed by the appellant…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bache & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
  2. United States v. American Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  3. United States v. International Forwarding Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
  4. Lietz Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1923

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Olympus Corp. of America v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1974
  2. American Holding Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
  3. F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  4. United States v. Bell & Howell Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  5. United States v. Central Scientific Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933

1 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