Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Caesar

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 19, 1930No. 3286Published

1Concurrence

*111CONCURRING OPINION

Graham, Presiding Judge:

I concur in the conclusion arrived at in the majority opinion, but can not concur in all of the language used in the opinion of my esteemed associate, Judge Garrett. I conclude, from an inspection of the record, that the Alengon lace in issue is embroidery not specially provided for, and is properly dutiable under the second subdivision of paragraph 1430 of the Tariff Act of 1922, at 75 per centum ad valorem. This is in harmony with United States v. Smith, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384, T. D. 40544, Kayser & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 474, T,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. Smith & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
  2. Kayser & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. Blumenthal v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  4. Kotzin Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  5. United States v. FieldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927

1 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