Legal Opinion

United States v. Pealtz

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 19, 1928No. 3115PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge

Paragraphs 302 and 374 of the Tariff Act of 1922 are as follows:

Par. 302. Manganese ore or concentrates containing in excess of 30 per centum of metallic manganese, 1 cent per pound on the metallic manganese contained therein; molybdenum ore or concentrates, 35 cents per pound on the metallic molybdenum contained therein; tungsten ore or concentrates, 45 cents per pound on the metallic tungsten contained therein; ferromanganese containing more than 1 per centum of carbon, 1% cents per pound on the metallic manganese *359contained therein: Provided, That ferromanganese for the purposes of this Act…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Drakenfeld & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
  2. Seeberger v. HardySupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  3. Drakenfeld & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  4. United States v. BernardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  5. Comstock v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. United States v. S. H. Kress & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
  2. Marshall Field & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
  3. United States v. Electrolux Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
  4. Instrumentation Associates, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  5. M. B. I. Export & Import, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957

10 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