Legal Opinion

United States v. Vandegrift & Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided December 30, 1918No. 1921PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 42134. [Oral argument Oct. 30, 1918, by Mr. Hanson].

1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge

The question here is whether an article indifferently referred to in the record as “Red Top roller varnish” or “roller varnish” is dutiable under paragraph 34 of the tariff act of 1913, which provides for “gelatin, glue and glue size” at varying rates, and for “manufactures of gelatin or manufactures of which gelatin is the component material of chief value at 25 per centum ad valorem,” or under paragraph 385 as an unenumerated manufactured article.

This so-called varnish was assessed under the former paragraph as a manufacture of gelatin or a manufacture in chief value thereof.

There is a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Murphy v. ArnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Meyer v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Benson v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hammond Lead Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  2. Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
  3. Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API