Legal Opinion
Harding Co. v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided January 6, 1936No. 3909PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge
A certain manufacture made from asbestos yarn, wire, and a mixture of other materials was, by the collector at the port of New York, classified under paragraph 1501 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, as a manu*251facture of asbestos yarn and assessed with duty at 40 per centum ad valorem.
The importers protested said classification and assessment of duty and claimed the merchandise to be dutiable at 25 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 369 of said act as parts of automobiles. In the protests other claims were made which are not pressed here.
The pertinent portions of the tariff act which we need to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. LyonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- United States v. WanamakerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
- United States v. Cartier (Inc.)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
- Snow's United States Sample Express Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Baxter Healthcare Corporation of Puerto Rico v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Storewall, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2009
- Ludvig Svensson (U.S.) Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1999
- Kyocera Industrial Ceramics Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2006
- Airflow Technology, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.