Case law

Atkins, Kroll & Co. v. United States

50 C.C.P.A. 62 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1963

Nor instance, appellant relies very heavily upon United States v. Benneche, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 92 , which involved stalks of boxwood to *66 be used for umbrella handles. … Another case brought to our attention by appellant is United States v. Larzelere & Co., 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 273 .

Floral Arts Studio v. United States

46 C.C.P.A. 21 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 5, 1958

Nix v. Hedden, 149 U. S. 304 ; American Felsol Co. et al. v. United States, 25 CCPA 367, 371, T. D. 49454; Nylos Trading Company v. United States, 37 CCPA 71, C. A. D. 422. … Smith Co. v.

United States v. Royal Copenhagen Porcelain, Inc.

17 C.C.P.A. 464 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1930

D. 16422, and Bour v. United States, 91 Fed. 533 , and held the merchandise dutiable as original paintings in mineral. … Adopting the reasoning in Wells, Fargo & Co. v.

United States v. Arnhold & Co.

27 C.C.P.A. 135 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 30, 1939

In the case of United States v. … In tbe case of United States v.

United States v. Race Co.

22 C.C.P.A. 327 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 5, 1934

The question as to the meaning of the word “machine”, in customs law, has been the subject of repeated decisions of -the Board of General Appraisers, now the United States Customs Court, and of this court. … United States v. Reid, United States v. Klingerit, United States v. McNab, supra; United States v. Stern & Co., 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 246, T. D. 46777. See also United States v. Laing, etc., 21 C. C. P. A.

Gulf Gypsum Co. v. United States

20 C.C.P.A. 101 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1932

In United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 90, T. … Ætna Explosives Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 298 , T. D. 38238, affirmed in 256 U. S. 402 ; United States v. American Chicle Co., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 98 , T. D. 38360, and Gudewell & Bucknell v.

United States v. Massce & Co.

18 C.C.P.A. 37 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1930

Drakenfeld & Co. et al. v. United States, T. D. 42559, 53 Treas. Dec. 76 . … The decision of the Board of U. S. General *42 Appraisers there cited was under the Tariff Act of 1897, which contained no eo nomine provision for brocades.

Penetrene Corp. v. Plough, Inc.

121 F.2d 539 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 2, 1941

Mayer Fertilizer & Junk Co. v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 156 O. G. 539 ; 35 App. D. C. 425; 1910 C. D. 399. … See Kelly Liquor Co. v. National Brokerage Co., Inc., 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1110, 102 F. (2d) 857, and cases therein cited.

Union Fork & Hoe Co. v. United States

86 F.2d 423 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 9, 1936

United States v. Schoonmaker et al., 93 Fed. 724 . … Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 350 , T. D. 42030, aff. in J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Company v. United States, 276 U. S. 394 .

Eurasia Import Co. v. United States

31 C.C.P.A. 202 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1944

We have examined with much care the decision of this court in the case of Brown & Co. et al. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 93 , T. … Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 132 . A construction of a statute which renders it unconstitutional as being divestive of substantive rights, must be avoided. United States v. LaFranca, 282 U. S. 568, 574 .

Togasaki v. United States

23 C.C.P.A. 342 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1936

In the case of United States v. De Grandmont, Inc., 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 17, T. … Tausend et al. v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 323 , T. D. 42490.

Bob Stone Cordage Co. v. United States

51 C.C.P.A. 60 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1964

Grant Company v. United States, 38 CCPA 57, C.A.D. 440; United States v. Good Neighbor Imports, Inc., 33 CCPA 91, C.A.D. 321; United States v. Fred. Gretsch Mfg. Co., Inc., 28 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 120. … Tobert Co., Inc. et al. v.

Leonard Levin Co. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 101 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 30, 1939

Color by itself is not sufficient to constitute an *104 imitation of a precious or semiprecious stone and we must hold that the board’s "finding that the beads in controversy are not imitation precious or semiprecious stones … Another case cited by appellant is that of Vandegrift & Co. v. United States. 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 165 , T. D. 42221, which arose under the Tariff Act of 1922.

United States v. J. E. Bernard & Co.

30 C.C.P.A. 213 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1943

They are somewhat like weighing or computing scales which are clearly machines, and were held to be dutiable as such under paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1922 by the Board of General Appraisers (now United States Customs … Stearns & Co. v. Russell, 85 Fed. 218, 225 .

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States

31 C.C.P.A. 36 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1943

In the case of United States v. … D. 38217, and United States v. Bloomingdale Bros. & Co., supra. In the case of Lloyd Co. v.

Michaelian & Kohlberg, Inc. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 551 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1935

See Woodruff & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 186 , T. D. 31942); also Sloane v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 463 , T. D. 37049). In United States v. Field & Co., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 183 , T. … Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U. S. 694 ; Seeberger v. Farwell, 139 U. S. 608 ; Lang et al. v. United States, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 228 , T. D. 38563. See also United States v.

United States v. Alatary Mica Co.

19 C.C.P.A. 30 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1931

Upon review of the decision of the United States Customs Court in United States v. … United States v. Irving Massin & Bros., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 19 , T. D. 42714.

In Re Amtorg Trading Corporation

75 F.2d 826 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1935

Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 129 F. 105 ; Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Strauss (C. C.) 171 F. 673 ; Rushmore v. Manhattan Screw & Stamping Works (C. C.) 170 F. 188 ; Brown v. Duchesne, 60 U. … Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U. S. 568 , 24 L. Ed. 235 ; Welsbach Light Co. v. Union Incandescent Light Co. (C. C. A.) 101 F. 131 ; National Phonograph *833 Co. v. Lambert Co. (C. C.) 125 F. 388 ; American Graphophone Co. v.

United States v. Paul A. Straub & Co.

41 C.C.P.A. 209 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1954

United States v. Paul A. Straub & Co., Inc., 30 Cust. Ct. 620 , A. R. D. 20. In so concluding, the appellate division affirmed the decision of the trial court. Paul A. Straub & Co., Inc. v. United States, 27 Cust. … Steer & Co. v. United States, 30 Cust. Ct. 504 , Reap.

Bonime v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 603 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1935

Counsel for importer contend here that the judgment of the court below ought to be reversed, principally on the authority of United States v. Mandel, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 223 , T. D. 31259, and United States v. … The Government, on its part, insists that these cases are not decisive, and cites United States v. Erlanger et al., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 437 , T. D. 43189, which is claimed to be decisive. United States v.