Legal Opinion

United States v. Baxter

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 11, 1928No. 3049PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge

The pertinent portions of paragraphs 410, 1302, and 1313 of the Tariff Act of 1922 read as follows:

Par. 410. * * * house or cabinet furniture wholly or in chief value of wood, wholly or partly finished, wood flour, and manufactures of wood or bark, or of which wood or bark is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for, SS}/s per centum ad valorem. (Italics ours.)

Pae. 1302. Paper board, wallboard,,.and pulpboard, including-cardboard, and leather board or compress leather, not laminated, glazed, coated, lined, embossed, printed, decorated, or ornamented in any manner, nor…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  2. United States v. FloryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. United States v. RiggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  4. United States v. American Shipping Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. Armand Schwab & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
  2. Absorbo Beer Pad Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
  3. Morganite, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API