Steinhardt v. United States

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

Steinhardt v. United States

92 F. 139, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2646

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided December 22, 1898·No. No. 1,945·Published

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge

(orally). The merchandise in question comprises black-headed pins, which were classified for duty under paragraph 108 of the act of 1890, as "manufactures of glass, or of which glass shall be the component material of chief value,” and claimed in the protest of the importers to be dutiable under paragraph 200, as “pins, metallic,” at 30 per cent, ad valorem. An examination of the samples 'and the record herein shows, that the merchandise in question dearly Calls within the principle of the case already considered, namely, Worthington v. U. S. (No. 1,792) 90 Fed. 797, and the decision of the board of appraisers is therefore 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 comprises black-headed pins, which were classified for duty under paragraph 108 of the act of 1890, as "manufactures of glass, or of which glass shall be the component material of chief value,” and claimed in the protest of the importers to be dutiable under paragraph 200, as “pins, metallic,” at 30 per cent, ad valorem. An examination of the samples 'and the record herein shows, that the merchandise in question dearly Calls within the principle of the case already considered, namely, Worthington v. U. S. (No. 1,792) 90 Fed. 797, and the decision of the board of appraisers is therefore reversed.

Steinhardt v. United States, 92 F. 139, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2646 (circtsdny 1898).

Pincite

92 F. 139 (Steinhardt v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related