United States v. Graser-Rothe
164 F. 205, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5299
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio
DecidedAugust 21, 1908
DocketNo. 6,266 (1,977)
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases
This text of 164 F. 205 (United States v. Graser-Rothe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
United States v. Graser-Rothe, 164 F. 205, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5299 (circtsdoh 1908).
Opinion
I agree with General Appraiser Plowell that:
“The merchandise as imported has been converted from a comparatively valueless article into a commodity of use and value by a process of manufacture specially designed for the purpose. Labor and machinery have been used in producing it, and because of the manufacturing process it has acquired a new name and a new use. It is therefore no longer a erode mineral, but is a manufactured article.”
It is dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem under the provision in section 6, for “all articles manufactured, in whole or in part, not provided for in this act.” See Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, 30 Stat. 205 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Orange Crush Co. v. California Crushed Fruit Co.
297 F. 892 (D.C. Circuit, 1924)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
164 F. 205, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-graser-rothe-circtsdoh-1908.