United States v. Graser-Rothe
164 F. 205, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5299
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio·Decided August 21, 1908·No. No. 6,266 (1,977)·Published·Cited by 1 cases
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
United States v. Graser-Rothe, 164 F. 205, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5299 (circtsdoh 1908).
164 F. 205 (United States v. Graser-Rothe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Orange Crush Co. v. California Crushed Fruit Co.
297 F. 892 (D.C. Circuit, 1924)