Legal Opinion

American Burtonizing Co. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 27, 1926No. 2657PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge

Certain tank filling machines, called zymateurs, composed of metal were, by appellant, imported from France. The appraiser reported the merchandise in question as not being legally marked, *653according to tbe requirements of section 304 of tbe Tariff Act of 1922, tbe pertinent portion of wbicb reads as follows:

Sec. 304. (a) That every article imported into the United States, which is capable of being marked, stamped, branded, or labeled, without injury, at the time of its manufacture or production, shall be marked, stamped, branded, or labeled, in legible English words, in a conspicuous place…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sylvester's Adm'r v. Willson's Adm'rsDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1905
  2. Vandegrift v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. American Hatters & Furriers Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1938
  2. Freedman & Slater, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  3. New York Bolting Cloth Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1938
  4. Connor v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1940
  5. Densten Felt Hair, Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1940

12 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