Legal Opinion

Schweitzer v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 11, 1928No. 3046PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

Merchandise, known in the trade and commerce of the United States as “paper-makers’ ■ felt, ” “drier felt, and “woolen-drier felt, ” and imported in the form of “endless belts” for use on a Four-drinier paper-making machine, was assessed for duty by the collector at the port of New York, in protest No. 108214-G, as woven fabrics at 45 cents per pound upon the wool content and 50 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1109 of the Tariff Act of 1922; and, in protest No. 145363-G, as manufactures of wool at 50 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1119 of that act.

The importer claims that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. Bosch Magneto Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  2. United States v. American Steel & Copper Plate Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. Welte v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
  4. Decorated Metal Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
  5. Durbrow & Hearne Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. United States v. Janson Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. United States v. Willoughby Camera Stores, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
  3. John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  4. Westinghouse Electric International Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1952
  5. United Merchandising Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962

52 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