United States v. Haynes

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

United States v. Haynes

124 F. 295, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4680

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

DecidedApril 20, 1901

DocketNo. 2,888

StatusPublished

This text of 124 F. 295 (United States v. Haynes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Haynes, 124 F. 295, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4680 (circtsdny 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

The merchandise in question comprises wool traveling rugs, upon which duty was assessed at 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 392 of the act of October 1, 1890, c. 1244, § 1, Schedule K, par. 392 (26 Stat. 596), as a manufacture of wool. The importer protested, claiming that the articles in question were dutiable as “rugs” eo nomine, under paragraphs 407 and 408 of said act (section 1, Schedule K, 26 Stat. 598). The Board of Appraisers sustained the protest of the importer. Subsequently the Treasury Department notified the collector of customs that said decision was not approved (T. D. 20,692), and I concur in the reasons therein stated, and therefore the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

The merchandise in question comprises wool traveling rugs, upon which duty was assessed at 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 392 of the act of October 1, 1890, c. 1244, § 1, Schedule K, par. 392 (26 Stat. 596), as a manufacture of wool. The importer protested, claiming that the articles in question were dutiable as “rugs” eo nomine, under paragraphs 407 and 408 of said act (section 1, Schedule K, 26 Stat. 598). The Board of Appraisers sustained the protest of the importer. Subsequently the Treasury Department notified the collector of customs that said decision was not approved (T. D. 20,692), and I concur in the reasons therein stated, and therefore the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F. 295, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-haynes-circtsdny-1901.