Middleton & Co. v. United States

Second Circuit

Middleton & Co. v. United States

151 F. 16, 80 C.C.A. 512, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4563

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided December 4, 1906·No. No. 68 (3,985)·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In affirming the decision of the court below and of the Board of General Appraisers, we do not mean to decide that the importations in'controversy'Járrowroot in its starchy form) were, not' dutiable directly under paragraph 285 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, c.11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat. 173 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1653], as a “preparation fit for use as starch.” The Board held them dutiable under that paragraph indirectly’by similitude. Whether tins reasoning was sound'or not,"a correct result has' been reached. ■'

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

PER CURIAM.

In affirming the decision of the court below and of the Board of General Appraisers, we do not mean to decide that the importations in'controversy'Járrowroot in its starchy form) were, not' dutiable directly under paragraph 285 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, c.11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat. 173 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1653], as a “preparation fit for use as starch.” The Board held them dutiable under that paragraph indirectly’by similitude. Whether tins reasoning was sound'or not,"a correct result has' been reached. ■'

Middleton & Co. v. United States, 151 F. 16, 80 C.C.A. 512, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4563 (2d Cir. 1906).

Pincite

151 F. 16 (Middleton & Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related