Legal Opinion

United States v. Sandoz Chemical Works

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 30, 1928No. 3087PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGeaham, Presiding Judge

The appellee imported certain coal-tar colors known as xylene milling blue BL concentrated, azo rubinol 3 GS concentrated, and chloramine blue 3 G concentrated on June 29, June 25, and August 3, 1925, respectively. These were classified by the collector at 7 cents per pound and 45 per cent ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 28 of the Tariff Act of 1922, the weight being determined by a computation made by the appraiser, based on the lowest known commercial strength of the merchandise, multiplied by the commercial strength of the merchandise, when imported. The importer protested,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lee v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  2. Factor v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  3. Bush v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  4. United States v. Sandoz Chemical WorksCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  5. Hammond v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. J. M. P. R. Trading Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  2. United States v. Barker Bros.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  3. United States v. Joseph G. Brenner Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API