Legal Opinion

Michelin Tire Co. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 26, 1915No. 1473PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7603 (T. D. 34807).

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, Presiding Judge

The sole question in this case is as to the sufficiency of the protest. The merchandise in question is conceded to be dutiable under *284paragraph 451 of the tariff act of 1909, and it is also conceded that it falls within the description of that paragraph as band or belting leather, dutiable at 5 per cent ad valorem, and that it is processed by being cut into forms suitable for conversion into manufactured articles and thereby subject to an additional duty of 10 per cent. The paragraph in question reads as follows:

451. Band, bend, or belting leather, rough leather, and sole leather, Jive per…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Arthur v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Greely's Administrator v. BurgessSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
  3. Carter v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
  4. Bowling Green Storage & Van Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Larzelere & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
  2. Rice & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
  3. George C. Whitney Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  4. United States v. MaloneCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
  5. General Electric Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916

3 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