Appeal of Schultz
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
Tbe government claims that the merchandise in question is a coal-tar preparation, not color or dye, not specially provided for, and tbe appellant claims that it is an acid used for mechanical, chemical, or manufacturing purposes, not specially provided for. It has been charged with duty under this provision of tbe act of October 1, 1890: “19. All preparations of coal tar not colors or dyes, not specially provided for in this act, twenty per centum ad valorem.” Tbe importer contends that it falls witbin tbe provision of tbe free list, as follows: “473. Acids used for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Matheson & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- Schoellkopf, Hartford & Maclagan, Ltd. v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1899