Case law

Arnold v. Langmuir

36 F.2d 834 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1930

Co. v. Greenawalt (C. C. A.) 27 F.(2d) 823 ; Mershon & Co. v. Bay City B. & L. Co. (C. C.) 189 F. 741 ; Howe Mach. Co. v. Nat. Needle Co., 134 U. S. 388 , 10 S. Ct. 570 , 33 L. Ed. 963 ; Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Walsh v. Davidson

101 F.2d 224 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1939

Blodgett and Hanson v. Richter, 79 F.2d 922 , 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 749. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Ricard-Brewster Oil Co.

29 C.C.P.A. 192 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1942

In Spencer, Kellogg & Sons (Inc.) v. United States, supra, an oral notice was given to the inspector at the dock prior to the time the goods were taken on board the exporting vessel. … Compliance with such may be the subject of proof before the Board of General Appraisers [now the United States Customs Court].

Dever

103 F.2d 376 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1939

Hatfield, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the' United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting all of the claims … See Eibel Co. v. Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45 .

United States v. Bacile

4 Ct. Cust. 139 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1913

De Vries, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal involves the same issue as that decided this day by the court in United States v. Palma, infra ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 140 ; T. D. 33412). … United States v. Palma, infra (T. D. 33412). For the reasons therein stated, the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Ullman v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 61 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1910

As was intimated by the court in Kimball v. … The decision of the circuit court, which affirmed the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, is affirmed.

Wallau Inc. v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 130 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1927

United States v. Riebe, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 19 ; Carson v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 105 ; Cathers v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 9 ; United States v. Tompkins Kiel Marble Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 7 , T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers (now United States Customs Court) is affirmed.

United States v. Wolff & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 418 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

Goat and Sheepskin Import Co. et al. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 178 ; T. D. 34254), Woolworth v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 120 -122; T. D. 31119), United States v. Hatters’ Fur Exchange ( 1 Ct. … D. 31237), United States v. Matagrin ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 309 -312; T. D. 31406), United States v. Harper ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 101 -105; T. D. 31655), American Express Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust.

United States v. Kerby

15 Ct. Cust. 329 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1927

It is a large volume, about 11 by 13 inches, elaborately bound in silk-covered boards. Upon its front cover is inscribed “An Old Chinese Garden. Kate Kerby,” with a line of Chinese characters. … Therefore, on authority of the case cited and upon the further authority of United States v. Nelson & Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 268 , T. D. 42465, and United States v. Furuya, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 331 , T.

In re Chmiel

262 F.2d 81 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1958

suspended from the wall as by mounting it to. the electrode” where the court found the reference “had no conception of a cup entirely segregated from the switch envelope.” ' The court cited with approval an excerpt from Hillard v. … For the reasons appearing above, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. The term “epoxy value” representa the fractional number of epoxy groups contained in 100 grams of resin.

In re Goldberg

168 F.2d 88 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1948

Claim 20 was allowed by the Primary Examiner, and claims 23 and 29 were allowed by the Board of Appeals. Counsel for appellant .moved to dismiss the appeal as to claim 18. The motion will be granted. … See General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. et al., 304 U. S. 364 .

Godillot v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 239 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1911

The words “or spirits” having been reincorporated into the act of 1897, the question again arose in United States v. Reiss & Brady (166 Fed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers in each of these cases is affirmed.

United States v. Bartley Bros. & Hall

5 Ct. Cust. 249 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1914

The Board of General Appraisers reversed the collector, holding that that portion of the importation represented by the above- *250 described samples did not fall for dutiable purposes within the last part of paragraph 452 … This court in United States v. Mark Cross Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 274 ; T. D. 33489) analyzed and construed this provision of the law.

Alfred Kohlberg, Inc. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 354 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1940

We do find, however, that the Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) in the year 1925, in the case of Nicolas Hemance v. United States, T. D. 41273, 48 Treas. … It is true that in United States v.

Erie Technological Products, Inc. v. United States

462 F.2d 564 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1972

Dec. 705 , T.D. 27363 (1906), in which the Board of General Appraisers held platinum black to be free of duty ns unmanufactured platinum. … It is not clear what was established by the evidence before the Board of General Appraisers in that case. At any rate, we cannot ignore the word “primary” in the present statutory definition.

Tilge v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 462 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1911

We held in that case that these packages must be examined by the appraiser and board of general appraisers in order that a valid appraisement may obtain. … American Sugar Refining Co. v. United States, supra, p. 228 (T. D. 31273); United States v. Lueder (154 Fed. Rep., 1).

United States v. McCullough Seed Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 237 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1925

On identification by the deputy collector at this board, the Government admits that the initials attached to the book just offered in evidence are Mr. … United States v. De Villamil, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 255 , T. D. 40267. We are of the opinion that the merchandise was imported under the tariff act of 1913, and the judgment is acordingly affirmed.

Horsfield v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 138 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1911

Arthur v. Unkart ( 96 U. S., 118 ); United States v. Schering (123 Fed. Rep., 65). It follows that this contention of the importer is not sustained. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Pacific Overseas Co.

42 C.C.P.A. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1954

The case of Keveney v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 101 , T. … In that case the court quoted the definition of “inlaid” as previously defined in Hunter v.

Stiner & Son v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 246 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 28, 1914

The question is much like that presented in the cases of United States v. McBratney ( 105 Fed., 767 ) and Schulemann v. … The decision of the board sustaining the action of the collector is affirmed.