Case law

Ricks v. United States

33 C.C.P.A. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1945

Also cited were Patterson v. United States, 166 Fed. 733 ; Arthur v. Fox, 108 U. S. 125 ; and Rosenstern v. United States, 171 Fed. 71 . … In this connection see Pickhardt v. Merritt, 132 U. S. 252 at 258 ; Stratton v. Komada & Co., 148 Fed. 125 ; United States v. Komada & Co., 162 Fed. 465 .

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.

Sunset Trimming Co. v. United States

25 C.C.P.A. 360 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1938

D. 40544, which affirmed the decision of'the Board of United States General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court). … In United States v. F. A.

John T. Bill Co. v. United States

104 F.2d 67 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1939

It is true that in the case of Domestic Fuel Corporation v. … In the case of Chew Heong v.

Tanross Supply Co., Inc. v. The United States

433 F.2d 1332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1970

Tobert Co. v. … See, for instance, New York Merchandise Co. v. United States, 62 Cust.Ct. 283 , 288, C.D. 3746 (1969). 6 .

United States v. United States Rubber Co.

31 C.C.P.A. 174 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1944

Exhibit 2 is yellowish-brown in color, which clearly indicates that it is not pure gutta-percha. It has impurities in it. … D. 32251); United States v. American Chicle Co. ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 98 ; T. D. 38360); United States v. Rice Co. ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 165 ; T. D. 37998). * * *. . ' In the case of Magee & Co. et al. v.

Stanley Bulkley Co. v. United States

26 C.C.P.A. 368 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1939

[Italics ours.] *373 In support of their contention, counsel cite the cases of United States v. Phelps et al., 27 Fed. Cas. 521 ; United States v. Fox et al., 53 Fed. 531; Gallagher & Ascher v. United States, 21 C. C. … See United States v. Phelps et al., supra.

Alfred Kohlberg, Inc. v. United States

25 C.C.P.A. 276 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1938

In the case of Krusi v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. … Thorp & Co., under the tariff act of 1897, decided by the Board of General Appraisers in 1899 (T. D. 21375), the following definition of the term in question was given by Fischer, G.

United States v. Oberlaender

25 C.C.P.A. 24 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1937

United States v. J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 475, T. D. 43932; American Express Co. v. United States, T. D. 36765, 31 Treas. Dec. 344 . … Petry Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 525 , T. D. 39666.

United States v. European Trading Co.

27 C.C.P.A. 289 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1940

By reference to United States v. European Trading Co., 26 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 103, C. A. … In Stirn v. United States, 12 Ct. cust. Appls. 42 at p. 46, T.

American Push Broom & Brush Co. v. United States

25 C.C.P.A. 248 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1938

In describing the merchandise there involved, we said: The goods imported were of five commercial grades, namely, G, G U, J V, V F O, and H V. … bundles as J V II, and the short bundles as J V III, each class being baled separately.

Japan Import Co. v. United States

86 F.2d 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1936

In Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. United States, 20 C.C.P.A. … S. v. The Brigantine William, Fed.Cas.No. 16,700, 2 Hall’s Amer.L.J., 255; Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, 9 Wheat. 1 , at pages 192, 193, 6 L.Ed. 23 ; Brolan v. United States, supra; Weber v.

United States v. Fisher Scientific Co.

40 C.C.P.A. 164 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1953

Brooks case, citing National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U. S. 292 . … United States v. Belgam Corp. et al., 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 402, T. D. 47402; United States v. J. L. Galef, 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 180, T. D. 44377.

United States v. Yoshida International, Inc.

526 F.2d 560 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 6, 1975

Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 (1904); The Abby Dodge, 223 U.S. 166 (1912); Brotan v. United States, 236 U.S. 216 (1915); Weber v. Freed, 239 U.S. 325 (1915); Board of Trustees v. … See McGoldrick v. Gulf Oil Corp., 309 U.S. 414, 428 (1940); Board of Trustees v. United States, 289 U.S. 48, 58 (1933); Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 411 (1928); Giggons v.

Minkap of California, Inc. v. United States

55 C.C.P.A. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 9, 1967

Fenton Co., Inc. v. … In Hill Brown Corp. v.

Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. United States

30 C.C.P.A. 150 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1943

United States v. H. V. Albrecht, Albrecht Import Co., Inc., and Stanley Jordan & Co., 27 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 112, C. A. D. 71; United States v. Marcel Kurtz, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 12, T. … D. 46943, 71 F. (2d) 438; United States v. Boston Paper Board Co., 23 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 372, T.D. 48233. It is clear that the issue here involves neither classification nor appraisement. It merely concerns quantity.

Chas. H. Demarest, Inc. v. United States

44 C.C.P.A. 133 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1957

United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons, 44 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 1, C. A. D. 626. … (Inc.) v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 133 , T.

Associated Commercial Co. v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 23, 1937

We have examined the record and briefs before this court in the case of United, States v. … It will be observed that this case was decided about four months after the decision in the case of United States v. Bird, supra, and is found in the same volume. In Zemansky v.

United States v. Tausig

18 C.C.P.A. 421 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1931

Keshishian & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 177 , T. D. 38961; Esposito v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 334 , T. D. 40485; United States v. Redden, 13 Ct. *426 Cust. Appls. 224 , T. … In Keshishian & Co. v. United States, supra, we affirmed the Board of General Appraisers in finding that the proof offered below did not establish a commercial designation different from the common meaning.

Sheffler Merchandise Co. v. United States

35 C.C.P.A. 63 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 29, 1947

Vantine & Co. v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 488 , T. D. 33124; Kenyon Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 344 , T. D. 33529; Blumenthal & Co. et al. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 327 , T. … D. 34529; Steinhardt & Bro. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 372 , T. D. 37629; Simiansky & Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 288 , T. D. 38224; United States v. Kalter Mercantile Co. et al., 11 Ct. Cust.