Case law

Hammond v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 251 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1926

In that conclusion we agreed with the Board of General Appraisers in that case. The same distinction is found in paragraph 1656, as well as in 717 of the present act. … Dec. 1078 ; United States v. Perry, 171 Fed. 303 ; In re Freeman & Co., Abstract 25838, 20 Treas. Dec. 1243 .

United States v. Coastwise Steamship & Barge Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 216 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1919

held the costs of repairs were dutiable within the rule laid down by the Circuit Court of Appeals in Hillhouse v. … United States ( 152 Fed., 163 ), as applied by this court in Denike v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 364 ; T. D. 34553).

In re Ornum

686 F.2d 937 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 5, 1982

Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U.S. 224 [ 13 S.Ct. 854 , 37 L.Ed. 710 ] (1893).] … The decision of the board is affirmed. AFFIRMED. .

In re Schwendt

102 F.2d 851 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

We are in agreement with the decision of the board which held! … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Knauth v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 58 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1913

The appellants protested and, their protest having been overruled by the Board of General Appraisers, appealed to this court, asserting that the goods are dutiable as “grain leather” under the ■proviso to paragraph 450, reading … Arthur v. Lahey ( 96 U. S., 112 ); Hensel v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 221 ; T. D. 31951); United States v. Schwarz ( 140 Fed., 302 ); Thomas v. Schwarz ( 140 Fed., 989 ); United States v.

Pacific Orient Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 138 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1924

MartiN, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a so-called re-reappraisement of imported merchandise made by a board of three general appraisers in proceedings begun under the tariff act … The issue is identical in principle with that decided concurrently herewith by this court in the case of Scaramelli v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 134 ; T. D. 40056).

United States v. Eckstein

3 Ct. Cust. 75 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1912

The board held the article to be properly dutiable as a dyed cotton yarn under paragraph 313. The Government brings the case here for review. … Although it has been subjected to an extraordinary process, yet it retains its character as cotton yarn, as was held by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Eckstein v. United States (reported in T. D. 32090).

United States v. Cohen

11 Ct. Cust. 488 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1923

Smith, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal raises the same question as that involved in the United States v. Henle Wax Paper Manufacturing Co., suit No. 2183, this day decided. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Wyman & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 483 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 15, 1915

The board sustained the protest and the Government appeals. … It results that the decision of the board is affirmed.

In re Knox

65 F.2d 264 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1933

Appellant’s able counsel cite several authorities, including Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Chesebrough-Pond's Inc. v. Faberge, Inc.

618 F.2d 776 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1980

Chesebrough relies on this court’s decision in Knickerbocker Toy Co. v. … Toro Co. v. Hardigg Industries, Inc., 549 F.2d 785 , 193 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1977); see also Stabilisierungsfonds Fur Wein v.

Application of Greider

186 F.2d 718 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1951

The majority, however, have affirmed the decision of the Board of Appeals with respect to the rejection of that claim. … Reed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191, 207 , 52 S.Ct. 532 , 76 L.Ed. 1054 .

Seven-Up Co. v. Bubble Up Corp. ex rel. O-So Grape Co.

312 F.2d 472 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

Cromwell v. County of Sac, supra, and Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States, supra. … For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. The Seven-Up Company v. Schneeberger, d.b.a. Bubble Up Company, Civil Action No. 2884, District Court, E.D.

Bendix Paper Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 366 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1918

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the assessment. … In this connection see Kupfer Bros. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 302 ; T. D. 32041) and Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne et al. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 11 ; T. D. 33199).

Application of Walter E. Donaldson, Deceased, by Elsie Donaldson, Legal Representative, and Beverley H. Van Horne

436 F.2d 1052 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1971

The graph charts the P-V relationship while pressurizing and depressurizing the cylinder up to and from that maximum pressure. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

In re Roth

477 F.2d 1391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1973

The details of the invention have been described in a previous interference with a patent to DeGroff, 1 DeGroff v. Roth and Hall, 412 F.2d 1401 , 56 CCPA 1331 (1969). … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. . Patent No. 3,128,070, filed March 4, 1963, issued April 7, 1964.

Patrikiadis Sons v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 497 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1923

We agree with tbe Board of General Appraisers tbat this evidence was not sufficient to overcome tbe presumption of tbe correctness of tbe collector’s classification. In tbe case of Moscbalades Bros. v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Quaintance

8 Ct. Cust. 191 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1917

After these protests were filed and prior to the hearing before the board, like merchandise was held not to be etamines, but to be dutiable as cotton cloth under some of the countable paragraphs. See Quaintance v. … The-highest rate provided in that paragraph is 30 per cent, and under the rule adopted by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v.

United States v. Florea & Co.

25 C.C.P.A. 292 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1938

In deciding the case, Judge Brown wrote an opinion in which Presiding Judge McClelland concurred by a special concurring opinion. … Marvel v. Merritt, 116 U. S. 11 ; United States v. North American Mercantile Co., 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 378, T. D. 43820.

The United States v. Soderhamn MacHine Manufacturing Company

417 F.2d 783 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 14, 1969

United States v. C. S. Emery & Co., 53 CCPA 1, 8 [2], C.A.D. 868 (1966). … National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian E. & S. Co., 306 U.S. 292, 300 , 59 S.Ct. 501 , 83 L.Ed. 660, 665 (1939), citing Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v.