Legal Opinion

United States v. Roesseler & Hasslacher Chemical Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided March 1, 1905No. 126PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This is an appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, affirming a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, which overruled the action of the Collector in assessing the imported merchandise as metal unwrought, under paragraph 183 of the act of July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 1, Schedule C, 30 Stat. 166 [U. S. Comp.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This is an appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, affirming a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, which overruled the action of the Collector in assessing the imported merchandise as metal unwrought, under paragraph 183 of the act of July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 1, Schedule C, 30 Stat. 166 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645], which is as follows: “Metallic mineral substances in a crude state, and metals unwrought, not specially provided for in this act, twenty…

1Opinion of the Court

COXE, Circuit Judge.

There is practically no dispute as to the nature and method of production of the merchandise in question. All of the four “ferros” are mixtures of iron and chromium, tungsten, molybdenum and vanadium, respectively, obtained by direct smelting in an electric furnace.

The proper classification of ferro-chrome for tariff purposes has been several times passed upon by the courts and as it is conceded that all of the ferros here in controversy are, in essential particulars, alike it will simplify the discussion if it be confined to ferrochrome alone. We understand this to be the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Arthur v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  2. Electric Smelting & Aluminum Co. v. Pittsburg Reduction Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1903
  3. United States v. DanaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1900

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. J. M. P. R. Trading Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  2. Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. Frank P. Dow Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  4. David L. Moss & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941
  5. Hartmann Trunk Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1940

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