Case law

Silberman-Becker Corp. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 79 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1939

As stated by Judge Brown in the dissenting opinion * * * “One or the other, certaiply, legally presents the claim for refund made and is timely.” … Meredith v. United States, 38 U. S. 486 .

United States v. Bacharach

18 C.C.P.A. 353 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1931

In Seeberger v. Hardy, 150 U. … D. 43091, and United States v. Bernard, Judae & Co., supra.

Cassard Romano Co. v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 191 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1931

Tins court, in the cases of United States v. Downing & Co., 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 545 , T. D. 36197; United States v. Olivotti & Co., 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 46 , T. D. 36309, and Petry Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. … United States v. Brown & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 3 ; United States v. Basket Imp. Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 98 ; United States v. Beierle, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 457 ; Shallus v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 556 .

United States v. Pacific Customs Brokerage Co.

41 C.C.P.A. 4 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1953

The witness stated that the amount of American money was of interest because in his opinion the Canadian Foreign Exchange Board requires a strict account of such currency. … Linen Thread Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 301 , T. D. 41220; Glendenning, McLeish & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 387 , T. D. 41320; Finsilver, Still & Moss v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust.

United States v. Frank P. Dow Co.

29 C.C.P.A. 48 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1941

The case of United States v. Charles Bashwiner, Lunham & Reeve, Inc., 28 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 100, C. A. D. 131, is relied upon as being controlling. … The Board of General Appraisers (now *52 the United States Customs Court) held that it was not a part of a machine, although it might be properly regarded as “a part of the operating machinery of the vessel,” but that it

United States v. Illfelder

17 C.C.P.A. 197 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1929

Dec. 715 , the Board of General Appraisers held magic lanterns much like those involved here to be toys, under paragraph 418 of the act of July 24, 1897, as opposed to optical instruments, under paragraph 111 of the same … United States v. Felsenthal, supra; United States v. Bassichis Co. et al., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 410 , T. D. 43133.

United States v. Schenkers, Inc.

17 C.C.P.A. 231 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1929

The second case is that of United States v. … Riga, 171 Fed. 783 , wherein the United States Circuit Court sustained the action of the Board of Appraisers, now the United States Customs Court, in holding certain metal pieces which had been advanced in manufacture to

United States v. Metro Bag Works

17 C.C.P.A. 145 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 14, 1929

United States v. Heller, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 227 , T. D. 41178, and United States v. Saks & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 367 , T. D. 41259. … An' examination of the typical samples of these hatpins and of the evidence leads us to the conclusion reached by the board that, although they are composed in chief value of spangles, they are not ornamented with them.

United States v. Masson

4 Ct. Cust. 363 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1913

It was in effect held by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Whitridge ( 197 U. … Chew Heong v. United States ( 112 U. S., 536, 554, 555 ); Shaw v. Railroad Co. ( 101 U. S., 557, 562, 565 ); People’s Bank v. Batchelder ( 51 Fed., 130, 136 ).

United States v. Stone

16 Ct. Cust. 82 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1928

In Cadwalader v. … D. 32206, this court said: We think the internal evidences of the paragraph itself would have justified the board in excluding all testimony going toward the point of commercial designation upon the ground, as set forth in

Westway Trading Corp. v. United States

633 F.2d 1388 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 30, 1980

Since the decision in Froman v. Peaslee, 9 Fed. … Walter & Co. v. United States, 42 CCPA 114, C.A.D. 582 (1955); Avakian Bros., Inc. v. United Stales, 41 CCPA 80 C.A.D. 532 (1953).

D. C. Andrews & Co. v. United States

25 C.C.P.A. 437 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1938

United States v. Embossing Co. et al., 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 220 , T. D. 32536; Bartley Bros. & Hall et al. v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 363 , T. D. 32961; and United States v. Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., 16 Ct. … This was the hold *449 ing of the trial court, which holding was based upon the decision of the Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) in F. Behrend v. United States, T. D. 25733, 8 Treas.

F. Mastronardi, Inc. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 350 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1940

Among the cases so cited is that of Fantini & Latoraco et al. v. United States, Abstract 32056, embraced in T. D. 33348/ 24 Treas. Dec. 556 . … Appellant also cites our decision in the case of Renken & Yates Smith Corp. v. United States, 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 225, T.

Oceanic Trading Co. v. United States

21 C.C.P.A. 146 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1933

United States v. Baldwin Universal Co., 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 394, T. D. 44641, and cases cited therein. … United States v. Baldwin Universal Co., supra; United States v. Allenby & Co. et al., 20 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 80, T.D. 45703.

Robert G. Lynch Co. v. United States

49 C.C.P.A. 74 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1962

Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U.S. 694 . In Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes v. … These cases are: Savannah Sugar Refining Corp. v. United States, 20 CCPA 272, T.D. 46061, United States Cane Sugar Refiners Assn. v. McNutt, 138 F. 2d 116 , United States v. Olavarria & Co.

Bamberger v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 512 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 16, 1929

United Stales v. Macy & Co., 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 8 , T. D. 36256; Western Blind & Screen Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 68 , T. D. 39942; Angel & Co. v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 19 , T. … In Angel & Oo. v.

Fletcher v. United States

92 F.2d 713 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1937

The Supreme Court of the United States in Louisiana v. … The following cases, we think, bear materially upon this construction: [citing Shriver v. Woodbine Savings Bank, 285 U.S. 467 , 52 S.Ct. 430 , 76 L.Ed. 884 , and United States v.

United States v. R. Hillier's Son Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 103 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1928

In Perry, Ryer & Co. v. … A new element is thus introduced into the paragraph which was not before the board in the case above cited, relating to like importations under the Act of 1894.

V. Mueller & Co. v. United States

115 F.2d 354 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 8, 1940

Woolworth Co. v. United States, 115 F.2d 348 , 28 C.C.P.A., Customs, -. … See also United States v. Klingenberg ( 153 U.S. 93 [ 14 S. Ct. 790 , 38 L.Ed. 647 ]) and Hadden v.. Merritt ( 115 U.S. 25 [ 5 S.Ct. 1169 , 29 L.Ed. 333 ]).”

Mueller v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 40 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1927

It is claimed that the decisions in the following cases support the contention of appellants: Astor v. Merritt, 111 U. S. 202 ; Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U. S. 495 ; Schlesinger v. Beard, 120 U. S. 264 . … A. 1507, the Board of General Appraisers (now United States Customs Court) had under consideration paragraph 483 of the tariff act of 1890, the pertinent part of which read as follows: Pab. 483. * * * teams of animals, ingluding