Case law

V. Casazza & Bro. v. United States

25 C.C.P.A. 184 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1937

The case of Schnitzler v. Yellowley et al., 290 Fed. 849 (not cited by either party), was concerned with the particular permit section of the National Prohibition Act here under consideration. … In most jurisdictions the doctrine was well settled that the court or board charged with the duty of issuing licenses was invested with a sound judicial discretion, to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances

Scharf Bros. v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 111 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1936

Mandelbaum & Co. v. United States, T. D. 11571, G. … United States v. Andrews & Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 258 , T. D. 40268.

United States v. Selectile Co.

49 C.C.P.A. 116 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

Appellant urges that the terms windowsills, thresholds, splash-boards, ledges, shelves, aprons for hearths, table tops, pullman counters, dressing counters, vanity tops, cabinet tops, hearths and other such terms “are clearly … polished, within the purview of paragraph 232 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930; Appellant argues that the merchandise at bar comes within the purview of paragraph 232(d), inter alia, because of our decision in United States v.

Joseph Ullmann Brokerage Corp. v. United States

42 C.C.P.A. 6 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1954

Act of 1930, 2 as well as section 16.2 of the Customs Regulations of 1943. 3 The record shows that it was the practice of the collector at New York to notify the ultimate, consignee and to list his name on the bulletin board … appellant argues that the language of section 485 (d) providing that the owner “shall possess all the rights of a consignee” entitles him to a posting of notice of liquidation in his own name, citing the case of United States v.

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.

United States v. McLaughlin

35 C.C.P.A. 34 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1947

D. 31277; United States v. Brown & Co. et al., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 47 , T. D. 38295; United States v. Stone & Downer, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , T. D. 40296; United States v. W. S. Makaroff et al., 16 Ct. Cust. … In the case of United States v.

Marks Bros. v. United States

30 C.C.P.A. 35 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1942

This color may be altered to a greenish blue by a heat high enough to vitrify the surface, or into brown or yellow by mixing lime or magnesia with the clay. 2. … See United States v. Klytia Corporation, 29 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 109, C. A. D. 178. The judgment is affirmed.

United States v. Hothouse Products Corp.

21 C.C.P.A. 261 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 6, 1933

The case of United States v. … The court in its opinion said: The Board and the Circuit Court concur in the opinion that the importers’ contention is well founded, and we see no reason for reaching a different conclusion.

Buschoff v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 15, 1912

Were this contention, however, upon its merits or upon the theory of the presence of a serious doubt resolved in favor of the importer, the record discloses, and the opinion of the Board of General Appraisers suggests, insuperable … Morrill v. Jones ( 106 U. S., 466 ); United States v. Dominici (78 Fed. Rep., 334); McBride v. United States (1 Ct. Gust. Appls., 293; T. D. 31354).

United States v. Central Vermont Railway Co.

17 C.C.P.A. 166 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1929

S. v. Tichenor, 8 Sawy. 152 . S. C. 12 Fed. … If the proceeding before the board is appellate, then, surely, the same rules must apply which would obtain in other courts of appeal.

Englander v. Continental Distilling Co.

95 F.2d 320 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1938

Daltroff & Cie v. V. Vivaudou, Inc., 53 F.2d 536 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 715; Richard Hellman, Inc., v. Oakford & Fahnestock, 54 F.2d 423 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 816; Walgreen Co. v. … Counsel for appellant insists, however, that the notice of (Opposition in the instant case is invalid because it was not accompanied by a resolution by the Board of Directors of appellee’s company authorizing the vice president

Cascade Corp. v. United States

595 F.2d 25 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 22, 1979

Minkap of California, Inc. v. United States, 55 CCPA 1, 10, C.A.D. 926 (1967); Hill Brown Corp. v. United States, 54 CCPA 99, 104, C.A.D. 917 (1967). … Baldwin Co. v.

Tausend v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 323 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1927

Carter v. Son v. United States, supra; Downing & Co., v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 447 , T. D. 35984; Altman v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 102 , T. D. 38749. … Gartner, Sons & Co. v. United States, 154 Fed. 957 ; United Stetes v. Vandegrift & Co., 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 226 , T. D. 33438; United States v. Chesterton Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 175 , T. D. 42232.

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

Old Joe Distilling Co. v. Esbeco Distilling Corp.

123 F.2d 658 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1941

It was said by the Court of Customs and Patents Appeals in Kelly Liquor Co. v. National Brokerage Co., 26 C. C. P. … Brown a proposal providing for the conveyance to you of certain real property and the grant to you of a certain easement, in consideration of the issuance and delivery ■by you of 49,500 shares of your common stock, and the

United States v. Gulf Oil Corp.

32 C.C.P.A. 133 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 4, 1945

Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. United States, 3 Cust. Ct. 39 , C. D. 199. In the recent case of Atlas Marine Supply Co. v. United States, 29 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 20, C. A. … Swan and Finch Co. v. United States, 190 U. S. 143 .

Lippincott Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 29 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1921

—Marriott v. Brune et al. ( 9 How., 50 U. S., 619); Lawder v. Stone ( 187 U. S., 281 ); United States v. Habicht ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 53 ; T. D. 31013); United States v. Shallus ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332 ; T. … The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protests and the importer appeals.

Mill v. United States

26 C.C.P.A. 54 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 2, 1938

See Mason v. Kane, 16 Fed. Cas. 1044 ; United States v. Ewing & Clancey, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 339 , T. D. 32625, and United States v. Globe Shipping Co., Inc., 19 C. C. P. A. 148, T. D. 45262. … See United States v. Sheldon & Co., supra.

C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 4, 1937

In December 1892 the United States Board of General Appraisers *335 (now the United States Customs Court) in the case of In re Thos. Irwin & Sons et al., T. D. 13655, G. … Irwin et al. v. United States, 67 Fed. 232 .

United States v. Guthman

3 Ct. Cust. 276 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1912

appear in the fourth provision of the paragraph are referable to the words “metal mesb” alone, and therefore confine the application of these words of limitation to metal mesh bags only was held by this court in Hensel v. … In this case, therefore, the decision of the Board of General Appraisers holding that such articles are properly dutiable under paragraph 199 as manufactures of metal is reversed.