Austin Baldwin & Co. v. United States

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

Austin Baldwin & Co. v. United States

139 F. 1005, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4745

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

DecidedJune 1, 1905

DocketNo. 3,727

StatusPublished

This text of 139 F. 1005 (Austin Baldwin & 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

Austin Baldwin & Co. v. United States, 139 F. 1005, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4745 (circtsdny 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

TOAVNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The merchandise in question was assessed for duty as “articles composed of iron or steel,” under Act 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par. 193, 30 Stat. T67 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645], and is claimed by the importers to be dutiable under the provision in paragraph 135, 30 Stat. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1638], for “steel in all forms and shapes not specially provided for.” The sole substantial statement relied .on to reverse the decision of the Board of General Appraisers consists of an informal acknowledgment made by a merchant in Scotland. The decision of the-board is affirmed on the single ground that such statement is not competent to overthrow the finding of the board upon legitimate evidence.

Decision affirmed.

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

TOAVNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The merchandise in question was assessed for duty as “articles composed of iron or steel,” under Act 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par. 193, 30 Stat. T67 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645], and is claimed by the importers to be dutiable under the provision in paragraph 135, 30 Stat. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1638], for “steel in all forms and shapes not specially provided for.” The sole substantial statement relied .on to reverse the decision of the Board of General Appraisers consists of an informal acknowledgment made by a merchant in Scotland. The decision of the-board is affirmed on the single ground that such statement is not competent to overthrow the finding of the board upon legitimate evidence.

Decision affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 F. 1005, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-baldwin-co-v-united-states-circtsdny-1905.