Legal Opinion

United States v. Darling

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 10, 1920No. 1969PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal horn Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 8222 (T. D. 37869). [Oral argument Oct. 21,1919, by- Mr. Hanson and Mr. Lane.]

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, Presiding Judge

The merchandise involved in this case consists of ivory carved in the form of roses, pansies,, daisies, and so forth, made up into brooches, scarf pins, and pendants. The goods were assessed for duty by the collector as jewelry. The Bo.ard of General Appraisers held them not dutiable under paragraph 356 as jewelry, and that they should be classified as manufactures in chief value of ivory and dutiable at 35 per cent under paragraph 369. The Government appeals and makes two contentions: First, that the goods were properly assessed as jewelry; second, that if not so assessable, the goods should…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cochran Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
  2. United States v. Mandel Bros.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Marshall Field & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
  2. Downing & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  3. Coro, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
  4. Coro, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952
  5. Field v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API