Loewenthal v. United States

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

Loewenthal v. United States

180 F. 941, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5536

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

DecidedAugust 4, 1910

DocketNos. 5,502, 5,503

StatusPublished

This text of 180 F. 941 (Loewenthal 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

Loewenthal v. United States, 180 F. 941, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5536 (circtsdny 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

HAZED, District Judge.

The merchandise in question was properly "assessed for duty a.s silk trimmings or galloons under paragraph 390,of the.tariff act- of 189'?', and I am content .to affirm the board on,its -opinion. The additional testimony' by the importers in this court tending to show that the articles were not galloons or trimmings, and were-in fact commercially known as-,bands, fancy bands, Persian bands or ribbons, is in conflict; the witnesses for the government testifying that they were trimmings and were similar to the goods involved in the case of Naday v. United States, 164 Fed. 44, 90 C. C. A. 462, T. D. 29,252, No. 3,918. In that case the Circuit Court of Appeals decided that similar articles were galloons,or trimmings within the trade meaning.

The articles before the court are narrow strips of silk having interwoven thereon ornamental designs, and are chiefly used to decorate and embellish women’s apparel. , The silk' strips in the N aday and Fleischer Ca’ses, exhibited to this court, were probably not as wide as the silk strips in suit nor as bizarre in design. But there is no substantial difference in quality, texture, or appearance; and, moreover, I agree with the witnesses for the government that the goods are known in trade as “trimmings.” : . .

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is'affirmed.

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

HAZED, District Judge.

The merchandise in question was properly "assessed for duty a.s silk trimmings or galloons under paragraph 390,of the.tariff act- of 189'?', and I am content .to affirm the board on,its -opinion. The additional testimony' by the importers in this court tending to show that the articles were not galloons or trimmings, and were-in fact commercially known as-,bands, fancy bands, Persian bands or ribbons, is in conflict; the witnesses for the government testifying that they were trimmings and were similar to the goods involved in the case of Naday v. United States, 164 Fed. 44, 90 C. C. A. 462, T. D. 29,252, No. 3,918. In that case the Circuit Court of Appeals decided that similar articles were galloons,or trimmings within the trade meaning.

The articles before the court are narrow strips of silk having interwoven thereon ornamental designs, and are chiefly used to decorate and embellish women’s apparel. , The silk' strips in the N aday and Fleischer Ca’ses, exhibited to this court, were probably not as wide as the silk strips in suit nor as bizarre in design. But there is no substantial difference in quality, texture, or appearance; and, moreover, I agree with the witnesses for the government that the goods are known in trade as “trimmings.” : . .

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is'affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F. 941, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loewenthal-v-united-states-circtsdny-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack