Case law

United States v. Canadian Vinyl Industries, Inc.

555 F.2d 806 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1977

United States v. American Brown Boveri Electric Corp., 17 CCPA 329, T.D. 43776 (1929). … Co. v. United States, 58 CCPA 45, C.A.D. 1002, 433 F. 2d 1340 (1970); C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States, 41 CCPA 195, C.A.D. 550 (1954); Yardley & Co. v. United States, 41 CCPA 85, C.A.D. 533 (1953).

Appleby v. Beckman

132 F.2d 324 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1942

It will be observed from the foregoing quotation that the board found it unnecessary to consider Beckman’s actual date of conception. … However, as stated by us in the case of Frank Jardine *749 and Ferdinand Jehle v. Elmer C. Long, 19 C. C. P. A.

Karoware, Inc. v. United States

564 F.2d 77 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 20, 1977

Price, Inc. v. United States, 68 Cust. … Smidth & Co. v.

United States v. Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A.

45 C.C.P.A. 20 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1957

Brown, 43 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 111, C. A. D. 617, which we shall refer to for convenience as “the former case” or “CAD 617.” … See also American Mail Line, Ltd. v. U. S., 24 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 72, and Burstein & Sussman v. U. S., 16 Ct. Cust.

United States v. Basket Importing Co.

15 Ct. Cust. 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1927

Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise involved in this appeal consists of Bar Harbor chairs of willow, identical with those which were the subject of appeal in United States Willow Furniture Co. et al. v. … If like treatment were applied to the typical exhibit of the imported chairs, no frame would remain. *164 We think the testimony amply supports the finding of the board that these chairs are not made with frames within the

Hale Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 508 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1923

See section 4, emergency tariff act, paragraph Q, tariff act of 1913; United States v. Grossfield ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 189 ; T. D. 31218). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers must therefore be reversed.

Northcutt v. Loesch

44 F.2d 859 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

This decision wras sustained by the Board of Appeals. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Prutton

205 F.2d 198 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1953

Prutton v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 144 , 191 F. 2d 341 . … The cases of In re Becker, 74 F.2d 306 , 22 C.C.P.A., Patents, 843, and Lavin v.

American Import Co. v. United States

26 C.C.P.A. 116 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1938

United States v. Clay Adams Co., Inc., 20 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 285, T. D. 46078. … The converse of this principle was stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.

Westergaard Berg-Johnsen Co. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 207 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 26, 1939

See Lord & Taylor v. United States, 26 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 151, C. A. D. 9. … With respect to this contention appellants cite the case of United States v. American Brown Boveri Electric Corporation, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 329, T.

Lador, Inc. v. United States

48 C.C.P.A. 6 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1960

United States, 44 CCPA 77, C.A.D. 640; (2) appellant has proved that it has used the imported works in “musical novelties” which are not music boxes under the decision in Thorens, Inc. v. … They are unmounted metal works, operable to produce recognizable tunes but have no sounding boards or enclosures.

Lackawanna Steel Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 93 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 24, 1920

In Hartranft v. Wiegmann ( 121 U. … In Baumgarten v.

Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes v. United States

29 C.C.P.A. 288 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1942

United States v. Hahn ( 91 Fed., 755 ], Hermann v. Arthur’s Executors ( 127 U. S. 363 ). … See Murphy v. Aranson, 96 U. S. 131 ; Pickhardt v. Merritt, 132 U. S. 252, 258, 259 ; Lang v. United States, supra.

Transport Co. v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 89 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 16, 1927

Brown, Associate Justice, dissenting, overruled the protest, and the importer appealed. … Our attention is also called to the cases of United States v. Milbank, Leaman & Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 166 , T. D. 41693; United States v. Paar, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 301 , T. D. 41911; and United States v. B. F.

United States v. Marquardt & Co.

6 Ct. Cust. 168 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

Tbe Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest, and the Government appeals. The board was not in accord upon the reasons prompting the relief afforded. … Stein v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 478 ; T. D. 31525). The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is, therefore, affirmed and a retiquidation ordered in accordance herewith. Affirmed.

United States v. Alex Schechter Corp.

25 C.C.P.A. 107 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 25, 1937

As observed by Judge Story in the case of United States v. May ( 3 Mason, 98 ; 26 Fed. … Cas., 1224 ), cited and approved by the Board in Smith’s case (supra): As to the form in which the invoice is made out, it is conclusive upon no per'son.

Perez v. United States

42 C.C.P.A. 156 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1955

which was made by the United States Customs Laboratory of Laredo, Texas, and submitted in evidence as Exhibit 3, is considered to be representative of the composition of all of the imported merchandise: One sample of dark-brown … (Inc.) v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 105 ; LaManna, Azema and Farnan, Inc. v. United States, 39 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 44.

Barnet v. Wied

195 F.2d 311 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1952

Gallagher v. Hastings, 21 App.D.C. 88 . In Fersing v. … In view of the foregoing, the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . See Ladoff v. Dempster, 36 App.D.C. 520 .

H. E. Schwitters & Sons v. United States

26 C.C.P.A. 288 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 27, 1938

The court stated: The Supreme Court held in Robertson v. Salomon, 130 U. S. 412 , 9 Sup. Ct. 559, 32 L. Ed. 995 , and in Nix v. Redden, 149 U. S. 304 , 13 Sup. Ct. 881, 37 L. … When ripe, the black and brown white-eyed globular seeds are sometimes roasted and used as a coffee substitute. sjs ‡ jjc }J; % The demand for this vegetable is increasing especially in New York.

United States v. W. X. Huber Co.

21 C.C.P.A. 567 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 26, 1934

Borgfeldt & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 421 , T.D. 39433; Eidlitz & Son v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 56 , T. D. 39998; United States v. Holt & Co., 17 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 385, T.D. 43822; Cintes v. … (Customs) 361, T.D. 44614; United States v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp., 19 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 119, T.D. 45247; Thornley & Pitt v. United States, 19 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 221, T.D. 45325.