Legal Opinion

United States v. Stone

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 24, 1924No. 2384PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

The merchandise involved in this appeal consists of carbonized wool; it was assessed for duty by the collector under paragraph 1106 of'the tariff act of 1922, which reads as follows:

Par. 1106. Wool, and hair of the kinds provided for in this schedule, which has been advanced in any manner or by any process of manufacture beyond the washed or scoured condition, including tops but not further advanced than roving, 33 cents per pound and 20 per centum ad valorem.

The importer protested the collector's classification and assessment and claimed that the merchandise was properly dutiable at 31 cents…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Smillie & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
  2. United States v. Sheldon & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  3. United States v. Maine Central RailroadCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Cone v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  2. Astoria Pan-Americana, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  3. J. Milton Hagy Waste Works v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
  4. Pacific Iron & Metal Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  5. United States v. MakaroffCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929

18 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