Opinion

Schoverling v. United States

  • 7 Ct. Cust. 172
  • 1916 CCPA LEXIS 66
  • 1916 WL 21498
Court
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Filed
May 29, 1916
Status
Published
Author
Vries
On the bench
Barber, Martin, Montgomery, Smith, Vries
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 81.8%

The opinion

De Vries, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

These importations were of policemen’s whistles. They were rated for duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York as articles valued at over 20 cents per dozen pieces, composed in chief value of metal and designed to be carried on or about or attached to the person, under the provisions of paragraph 356 of the tariff act of 1913. The importers protested and are the appellants here. They make claim that the merchandise is properly dutiable as articles or wares composed .wholly or in chief value of metal under the provisions of paragraph 167 of the act.

Upon the authority of the following decisions rendered by this court, American Bead Co. and Wolff & Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 161 ; T. D. 36465); United States v. Sussfeld, Lorsch & Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 126 ; T. D. 36454); United States v. American Bead Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 132 ; T. D. 36456); Bischoff & Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 138 ; T. D. 36458); United States v. Malhami & Co. and Woolworth & Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 175 ; T. D. 36493), the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.