Bancel v. United States

176 F. 132, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5779
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided November 10, 1909·No. No. 5,512·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MARTIN, District Judge.

The merchandise in question is invoiced as modeling clay, and is also sometimes called plastilina.' It was assessed for duty at 20 per cent, ad valorem under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 6,-30 Stat. 205 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1093), as a manufactured article, unenumerated. The particular claim of the importer relied upon on the argument was that said merchandise should be assessed as “clay” under section 1, Schedule B, par. 93, 30 Stat. 156 (U. S. Comp. .St. 1901, p. 1632), either directly or by application of the similitude clause of section 7, 30 Stat. 205 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693).. The Board of General Appraisers affirmed the assessment of^the collector.

The question presented here seems to be solely one of fact. The Board properly classified the importation upon the facts as it found them. I see nothing in the record to justify the court in changing the Board’s findings.

Decision affirmed.

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

Bancel v. United States, 176 F. 132, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5779 (circtsdny 1909).

176 F. 132 (Bancel v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Strohmeyer
6 Ct. Cust. 246 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1915)