Legal Opinion

Birn v. Du Pont Cellophane Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 12, 1929No. 3196; No. 3197; No. 3204; No. 3205Published

1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge

These two appeals and two cross appeals involve the dutiable classification of two importations. In the case of Birn & Wachen-heim, the importation consisted of thin, highly transparent sheets of cellulose material sold under the trade name of fenestra and used for wrapping tobacco, candy, and food products. ]¿i the Herile Wax Paper Mfg. Co. (Inc.) case, the importation was in all material respects similar to the fenestra and was known as transparit. The fenestra and transparit were classified for duty by the collector as gelatin by similitude and assessed at 25 per centum ad valorem under…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. MassinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. Aetna Explosives Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
  3. Rolland Frères (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
  4. Monticelli Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
  5. Smith v. RheinstromCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895

2 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