Selbach v. United States

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

Selbach v. United States

78 F. 803, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2505

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided February 18, 1897·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge

(orally). The merchandise In question is anthracene or alizarine yellow, claimed to be free, as alizarine, [804] natural or artificial, under paragraph 595 of the tariff act of March 3, 1885, hut assessed for duty under paragraph 82 of said act as a coal-tar color or dye, by whatever name known, not specially provided for. That this article is not chemically alizarine seems to be immaterial. The evidence is undisputed that it responds to the alizarine tests, and was commercially known and dealt in as “aliz-arine” or “alizarine yellow” at the time of the passage of said act. The decision of the board of general appraisers affirming the action of the collector is reversed.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge

(orally). The merchandise In question is anthracene or alizarine yellow, claimed to be free, as alizarine, [804] natural or artificial, under paragraph 595 of the tariff act of March 3, 1885, hut assessed for duty under paragraph 82 of said act as a coal-tar color or dye, by whatever name known, not specially provided for. That this article is not chemically alizarine seems to be immaterial. The evidence is undisputed that it responds to the alizarine tests, and was commercially known and dealt in as “aliz-arine” or “alizarine yellow” at the time of the passage of said act. The decision of the board of general appraisers affirming the action of the collector is reversed.

Selbach v. United States, 78 F. 803, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2505 (circtsdny 1897).

Pincite

78 F. 803 (Selbach v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related