Abram De Ronde & Co. v. United States

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Abram De Ronde & Co. v. United States

140 F. 92, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4761

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedMay 18, 1905

DocketNo. 3,745

StatusPublished

This text of 140 F. 92 (Abram De Ronde & Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abram De Ronde & Co. v. United States, 140 F. 92, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4761 (circtsdny 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge

(orally). The importation in question consists of certain soluble grease, and was classified for duty under paragraph 32 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, 'Schedule A, 30 Stat. 153 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1629], as an alizarin assistant. The importers contend that it is dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article under section 6 of said act, 30 Stat. 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693]. The testimony introduced before the Board of Appraisers does not overcome the evidence before the court on the former trial, and on which Judge Coxe rendered a decision in favor of the importer. See De Ronde v. U. S., 113 Fed. 858. Furthermore, since the last decision of the board additional testimony has been taken in this court, which confirms the testimony taken in the former case. The record therefore fails to establish the contention that the article in question is either in fact alizarin assistant, or is used for the purposes for which an alizarin assistant is used.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge

(orally). The importation in question consists of certain soluble grease, and was classified for duty under paragraph 32 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, 'Schedule A, 30 Stat. 153 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1629], as an alizarin assistant. The importers contend that it is dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article under section 6 of said act, 30 Stat. 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693]. The testimony introduced before the Board of Appraisers does not overcome the evidence before the court on the former trial, and on which Judge Coxe rendered a decision in favor of the importer. See De Ronde v. U. S., 113 Fed. 858. Furthermore, since the last decision of the board additional testimony has been taken in this court, which confirms the testimony taken in the former case. The record therefore fails to establish the contention that the article in question is either in fact alizarin assistant, or is used for the purposes for which an alizarin assistant is used.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 F. 92, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abram-de-ronde-co-v-united-states-circtsdny-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack