Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher v. United States

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

Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher v. United States

135 F. 255, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5197

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided November 3, 1904·No. No. 3,350·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

HAZEL, J.

The evidence before the court satisfactorily shows that the merchandise consists of so-styled time detectors having a clock mechanism or time indicator. Duty was assessed under paragraph 193 at 45 per centum ad valorem. This was error. The article should be assessed for duty under paragraph 191, which provides for the payment of duty upon watch movements, etc. 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

HAZEL, J.

The evidence before the court satisfactorily shows that the merchandise consists of so-styled time detectors having a clock mechanism or time indicator. Duty was assessed under paragraph 193 at 45 per centum ad valorem. This was error. The article should be assessed for duty under paragraph 191, which provides for the payment of duty upon watch movements, etc. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher v. United States, 135 F. 255, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5197 (circtsdny 1904).

Pincite

135 F. 255 (Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related