# United States v. Interocean Forwarding Co.

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1917 · 8 Ct. Cust. 155

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6827802

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Interocean Forwarding Co.
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** May 21, 1917
- **Citations:** 8 Ct. Cust. 155; 1917 CCPA LEXIS 72; 1917 WL 20086
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Martin
- **Judges:** Barber, Martin, Montgomery, Smith, Vries
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6827802

## Opinion text

Martin, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The merchandise in this case consists of surgical forceps and other instruments, with two lever handles working on a pivot, and with cutting, gripping, or punching jaws. The articles are conceded to be identical with those which were before this court in the case of Koch v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 534 ; T. D. 36148).
The articles were returned as nippers and pliers, and were accordingly assessed with duty as such at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 166, tariff act of 1913.
The importers protested, claiming assessment at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under the provisions for manufactures of steel in paragraph 167 of the same act.
The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest, and the Government appealed. •
The chief contention in the! case at the trial before the board related to the question whether the protestants were bound to allege in the protest and prove in chief at the trial that they had complied with the statutory inhibition against agreements for contingent fees (paragraph N of section 3, act of Octobér 3, 1913).
' This question is considered at length by the court in the concurrent case of United States v. Emery-Bird-Thayer Dry Goods Co., herewith reported, and consequently will not be enlarged upon here.
In our opinion the decision of the board regarding the proper classification of the merchandise, as well as the practice in relation to the contingent-fee provisions of the statute, was correct, and the same is affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6827802. Public record. Not legal advice.