Case law

Geo. S. Bush & Co. v. United States

38 C.C.P.A. 30 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1950

Pit saws are handsaws used for sawing boards directly from the log. Mill saws are upright saws operated by machinery and used for rift sawing. … In support of the contention for use designation they rely principally on the cases of Julius Forstmann & Co. v. United States, 28 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 222, C. A. D. 149, and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. v.

The United States v. Clayton Chemical & Packaging Co.

357 F.2d 1009 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1965

As indicated in United States v. H. … Jenkins Brothers v. United States, 25 C.C.P.A. 90 , T.D. 49093; United States v. Semon Bache & Co., 25 C.C.P.A. 387 , T.D. 49466; Adolph Goldmark & Sons Corp. v.

United States v. Fred Whitaker Co.

40 C.C.P.A. 19 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1952

The trial court, in commenting on the cases of United States v. Bennett, 66 Fed. 299 ; United States v. Heckman, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 272 , T. D. 31318; and A. C. Lawrence Leather Co. v. United States, 21 Cust. … In the case of Chicago Wool Co. of Pennsylvania v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 641 , T.

Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite Corporation

39 F.2d 247 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1930

The United States Tariff Commission, under the law, is not a judicial tribunal, but an administrative board. Its functions are those of a fact finding commission. United States ex rel. v. … Collopy v. Cloherty (Ky.) 39 S. W. 431 . In the absence of statutory restriction, the general rule is that a majority of a council or board is a quorum, and the majority of the quorum can act. Merrill v.

Centennial Flouring Mills Co. v. United States

29 C.C.P.A. 264 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1942

Any of various large brown seaweeds of the families Laminariaceae and Fucaceae. Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary: 1. … In the case of Stone & Co. v.

Mutual Lamp Mfg. Co. v. United States

21 C.C.P.A. 231 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 6, 1933

The importer contends that the court below, in holding the articles ■not to be slabs, disregarded this court’s holding in Richard Shipping Corp. v. United States, 17 C.C.P.A. … The Government contends that the case of Richard Shipping Corp. v. United States, supra, is not controlling of the issues here.

United States v. Meyer

32 C.C.P.A. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1944

On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Strohmeyer & Arpe v. … Brown v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 415 , and G. A. 8845, T. D. 40376, distinguished.

Stone & Downer Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 62 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 17, 1923

In the case of Dunlap v. … The judgment of the Board of' General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Wilkinson Process Rubber Sales Corp.

22 C.C.P.A. 60 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1934

In Kleinberger & Katz v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. … (Inc.) v. United States, 17 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 355, T.D. 43798; Ishimitsu v. United States, supra; A. H. Ringk & Co. et al. v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 132 , T.D. 42769; Fujii Shoten v.

United States v. Hori Bros.

19 C.C.P.A. 108 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1931

Illfelder v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 109 , T. D. 31115. … There is nothing in the case of United States v. China & Japan Trading Co., 71 Fed. 864 , which conflicts with this conclusion.

United States v. Kriss Kross Corp.

24 C.C.P.A. 133 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 26, 1936

The Board of United States General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) in the case of Karl Offer v. United States, T. D. 40261, 46 Treas. … 20 cents per dozen pieces did not take them out of paragraph 1428, Tariff Act of 1922, since the article when completed had a value above that amount, and cited as supporting authority the cases of Mamluck & Co. et al. v.

United States v. Guth Stern & Co.

21 C.C.P.A. 246 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 6, 1933

United States v. Bassichis Co. et al., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 410 , T.D. 43133, and cases therein cited; Kelly & Co. v. United States, 17 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 30, T.D. 43322. … On September 9, 1925, the United States Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) in an abstract opinion, No. 49972, in a case arising under the 1922 act where the issue was squarely between paragraphs

B & W Wholesale Co., Inc. v. The United States

436 F.2d 1399 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1971

I don’t believe we take possession until it gets on board ship. … Zerkowitz & Co. v.

United States v. Canadian National Railways

29 C.C.P.A. 272 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1942

In the case of Rotograph Co. v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 82 , T. D. 31106 ( 19 Treas. … This court reversed the decision of the Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) and held that the post cards were properly dutiable as claimed by the importer. In the case of Knauth v.

E. N. Kennedy (Inc.) v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 24 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1931

Appellant’s counsel argues that prior to the decision of this court in the case of United States v. Richard & Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 143 , T. … D. 42216, on May 19, 1927, the Board of General Appraisers appraised merchandise at a price paid by jobbers rather than at a price paid by retailers and that he could not be held to such a knowledge of the customs laws of

Isler & Guye v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 74 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 10, 1920

This court in United States v. Gage Bros. & Co. ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 306 ; T. … Protest. 852160 covered by this appeal not having been supported by testimony before the board was properly overruled. Modified.

G. & H. Transport Co. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 159 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 30, 1939

United States v. Philipp Wirth et al., 20 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 94, T. D. 45705. … (Inc.) et al. v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 37, T. D. 43324.

Lord v. United States

26 C.C.P.A. 151 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1938

In the case of Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. … United States Trust Co. v. David, 36 App. D. C. 549; Wood v. Carpenter, 101 *157 U. S. 135 . See also Shauer v. Alterton, 151 U.

United States v. Davies

16 Ct. Cust. 424 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1929

Co. v. Maguire, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 140 , T. D. 40964, and Rogers v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 51 , T. D. 41552, they should be held dutiable as such. … The rule announced in these cases is well summed up in United States v.

Teller v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 348 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1932

In Tower Manufacturing & Novelty Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 267, 269 , T. … opinion that the reports made by local appraisers to collectors concerning merchandise when within their duties become part of the record in the case, and as such may be considered upon the trial of the protest before the board