Legal Opinion

United States v. Berger

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided December 4, 1925No. 2558PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

Merchandise, described in the invoice as “rough glasses for bracelet watches,” consisting of oblong pieces of glass, slightly bent, 1}{ by three-fourths inches in size, made of cylinder glass, unpolished, bought and sold as “blanks for bracelet watches,” and used in making crystals for such watches, was assessed for duty by the collector at 60 per centum ad valorem as watch crystals under paragraph 238 of the Tariff Act of 1922.

The importers contended before the Board of General Appraisers, and now claim, that the merchandise was dutiable under paragraph 219 of the Tariff Act of 1922 at the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. American Thermo-Ware Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  2. United States v. BacheCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
  3. Scientific Supply Importing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Barber v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941
  2. William Adams, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
  3. Hudson Merchandise Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  4. Pistorino & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  5. United States v. American Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

6 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