Case law

United States v. Rivers

10 Ct. Cust. 262 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1921

at the hearing by the importer, and considered by the board. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. General Dyestuff Corp.

29 C.C.P.A. 53 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1941

It is dark brown in colour, and can be bleached. M. p. 80°-90° C.; soluble in benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride. … (Inc.) v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 355, T. D. 43798; A. H. Ringk & Co. et al. v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 132 , T. D. 42769.

In re Weeks

48 F.2d 662 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1931

Co. v. Union Electric Mfg. Co. et al., 147 Fed. 266 ; Comptograph Co. v. Mechanical Accountant Co., 145 Fed. 331 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Berger

13 Ct. Cust. 362 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

American Thermo- Ware Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 218 , T. D. 35465; United States v. Bache & Co., 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 445 , T. D. 37011. … Scientific Supply Importing Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 56 , T. D. 34094.

In re Moulton

38 F.2d 694 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1930

Claims 1 to 9, inclusive, and 13 to 15, inclusive, were rejected by tbe board on reference to DeVault, 1355543, dated October 12, 1920. … Risdon Locomotive Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68, 77 ; Westinghouse v. Boyden P. Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537 , 557; Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366, 383 .

S. Ban Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 380 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 29, 1914

Peacock & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 305 ; T. D. 32095). In deciding an issue identical with the present one, under the tariff act of 1909, in the case of Furuya & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. … In accordance with the ruling in the Furuya case, supra, the decision of the board in the present case is ’affirmed.

United States v. Grinnell Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 255 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1928

The Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court), on March 26, 1926, after hearing testimony, entered judgment sustaining the protest. … In United States v.

Daggett & Ramsdell, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Company

275 F.2d 955 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 15, 1960

275 F.2d 955 DAGGETT & RAMSDELL, INC. v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY. Patent Appeal No. 6526. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. March 15, 1960. Mead, Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, William E. … Browne, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant. Allen & Allen, Cincinnati, Ohio (Erastus S. Allen, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel), for appellee.

Tuska v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 535 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1911

Morimura v. United States (167 Fed. Rep., 687; T. D. 29566.) See also T. D. 29696. … From the record at hand it is impossible to determine with precision how far the decision of the Board of General Appraisers conflicts with this determination, but in so far as the decision does conflict it is reversed.

Thornley v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 221 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1931

Customs Court] as part of the proceedings before the collector, and were properly retained by the board among the files of the case, but at the trial before the board they were not competent evidence of the facts stated … Allen v. Chambers, 51 Pac. (Wash.) 478, 480; Bowden v. Morris, Fed. Cas. 1715; Starkweather v. Loomis, 2 Vt. 573 ; Chinn v. Taylor, 64 Tex. Rep. 385, 389 ; 46 C. J. 218, sec. 163.

Caplan v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 247 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1926

In Bister v. … In Robinson v.

Application of William A. Larmon and William W. Rice, Jr

223 F.2d 475 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1955

Saunders Co., Phila. (1924) Vol. 1, p. 67; Mueller, General Catalog, V. Mueller & Co., Chicago, Ill. (1938) p. 340, Item OB-260. … The Board of Appeals endorsed the reasoning and affirmed the holdings of the Primary Examiner on all counts.

Application of Thomas C. Morris (Deceased) and Eric C. Johnson

328 F.2d 905 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1964

Regar & Sons v. Scott & Williams, 63 F.2d 229 (2d Cir. 1933): "* * * When old devices are changed at all, the change may be dictated by a new conception, which it took originality to conceive. … I would reverse the decision of the board.

A. Hofmann, Inc. v. United States

71 F.2d 316 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1934

To the same effect was United States v. Morrow, 266 U.S. 531, 535 . … Other cases in point are Water-Pierce Oil Co. v. Deselms, 212 U.S. 159, 179 ; Charbonnier et al. v. United States, 45 F. (2d) 166; Snider v. Sand Springs Ry.

Application of Robert H. Cother

437 F.2d 1399 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1971

V. Lupo, Washington, D. C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and NEWMAN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. … In sustaining the rejection of these claims, the board stated: 30 According to appellant's own disclosure this is merely the calculated value to provide response [of the amplifier] down to 2 c. p. s.

Reddy v. Dann

529 F.2d 1347 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1976

Dann, 503 F.2d 562 , 183 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1974), and Duffy v. … Import Motors Limited, Inc. v.

International Minerals & Metals Corp. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 245 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1924

I am unable to agree with the conclusion that this case is ruled by United States v. Philips Co. (7 Ct. Oust. Appls. 497; T. D. 37110). There the place of principal foreign market was agreed to. … Board of General Appraisers on the ground that the appraisal was void as not having been made in accordance with law. Smith, Judge, concurs in this dissent.•

Freedman v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 104 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1929

We think the decision in the case of United States v. Metropolitan Aluminum Co., supra, is not authority for the contention of counsel for the Government. … In that view we think the conclusion of the board correct. * * * # * sjs * Manifestly the articles under the findings of the board are not in chief value of collodion or pyroxylin or any of the compounds thereof.

Bernard v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 280 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1924

The above case and the cases of Lang et al. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 85 ; T. D. 34129); United States v. F. W. Myers & Co. ( 139 Fed. 344 ; T. D. 26517) (the fireproofed lumber case), and United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Ueland v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 56 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1939

Per Curiam: This is an appeal by importers from the judgment of the United States Customs Court, First Division, Brown, J., dissenting, overruling a protest through which it is sought to recover certain moneys paid the Collector … Chamberlin, Inc. v. Andrews, 299 U. S. 515 . United States v. A. Hauptmann, Inc., 25 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 323, T. D. 49423. It is so ordered.