Legal Opinion

Hecht Pearl Co. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 3, 1930No. 3354Published

1Opinion of the CourtGarrett, Judge

Certain imitation pearl beads on strings imported by appellant were classified and assessed for duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York as jewelry under paragraph 1428 of the Tariff Act of 1922, the material portion of which reads:

Par. 1428. Jewelry, commonly or commercially so known, finished or unfinished, of whatever material composed, valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, 80 per centum ad valorem; * * *

Appellant protested, claiming the merchandise to be properly dutiable undef that portion of paragraph 1403, which reads:

Par. 1403. * * * imitation pearl beads of all…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Chew Hing Lung v. WiseSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  3. United States v. Doragon Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  4. United States v. Cartier (Inc.)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  5. United States v. International Forwarding 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