Rosenberg v. United States

S.D. New York

Rosenberg v. United States

141 F. 379, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4895

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 18, 1905·No. No. 3,740·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge

(orally). The merchandise 'in question consists of certain fabrics, assessed for duty under the provisions of Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par. 179,. 30 Stat. 166 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1644], for “articles made wholly or in chief value of * * * metal threads.” The importers-protested, claiming that the merchandise should have been classified as manufactures of metal, under paragraph 193 (30 Stat. 167 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645]) of said act.

Decision affirmed, on the opinion of the Board of Appraisers.

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

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge

(orally). The merchandise 'in question consists of certain fabrics, assessed for duty under the provisions of Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par. 179,. 30 Stat. 166 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1644], for “articles made wholly or in chief value of * * * metal threads.” The importers-protested, claiming that the merchandise should have been classified as manufactures of metal, under paragraph 193 (30 Stat. 167 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645]) of said act.

Decision affirmed, on the opinion of the Board of Appraisers.

Rosenberg v. United States, 141 F. 379, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4895 (S.D.N.Y. 1905).

Pincite

141 F. 379 (Rosenberg v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related