Legal Opinion

Kennedy v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 4, 1924No. 2382PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge

The imported merchandise involved in this case was by the collector assessed for duty at 70 per cent under paragraph 212, act of 1922, as decorated china, and- it is contended by the importers that it should have been classified under paragraph 1446 of the act of 1922. The two competing paragraphs read as follows:

Par. 212. China, porcelain, and other vitrified wares, including chemical porcelain ware and chemical stoneware, composed of a vitrified nonabsorbent body which when broken shows a-vitrified or vitreous, or semivitrified or semi-vitreo'u's 'fracture,'and all bisque and parían…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Brennan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1905
  3. Smith & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
  4. United States v. American Bead Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. MassinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. J. Orlando Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  3. Benziger Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API