United States v. Andrews Co.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtGraham, Presiding Judge
The appellee imported certain jade beads and strung seed pearls. These were classified by the collector for dutiable purposes as “jewelry, unfinished,” under paragraph 1428 of the Tariff Act of 1922. The importer protested, claiming the goods were dutiable at 20 or 60 per centum ad valorem, under paragraph 1429 thereof; at 35 per *413centum as beads, under paragraph 1403; or at 45 per centum as beads in imitation of precious stones, under said paragraph 1403; with several other alternative claims not material here. The Customs Court sustained the protest under said paragraph 1429, holding the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Nix v. HeddenSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
- Kohlsaat v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- United States v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Henry E. Frankenberg Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gregory v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
- Calif-Asia Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
- Hecht Pearl Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- United States v. Invicta Seeland, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
- United States v. Jules Raunheim Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930