Larzelere & Co. v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 39630. [Oral argument October 31,1916, by Mr. washburn and Mr. Tompkins and Mr. Hanson.]
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, Presiding Judge
The merchandise involved in this case was invoiced as boro-carbone. The testimony in the case shows without contradiction that it is in *65fact an artificial corundum. It is made by melting and then crushing bauxite, and is used in place of natural corundum as an abrasive material and in combination with certain clays for the manufacture of corundum wheels.
It was assessed for duty under paragraph 343 of the tariff act of. 1913 as emery, ground, by similitude. The importers claim that it is entitled to free entry under paragraph 479 of that act as corundmn or crude artificial abrasive.
Three…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. SalambierSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Carter v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
- Bliven v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
- Klipstein v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- Bowling Green Storage & Van Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
- Christensen Diamond Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
- Joseph Weiss Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
- Ricks v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1943
- Friedland v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.