United States v. Hunter

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

United States v. Hunter

124 F. 1005, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4958

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1900

DocketNo. 2,654

StatusPublished

This text of 124 F. 1005 (United States v. Hunter) 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. Hunter, 124 F. 1005, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4958 (circtsdny 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

This is gummed paper for adhesive purposes. It was assessed by the collector at 30 per cent., as surface-coated paper, under Tariff Act Aug. 28, 1894, c. 349, §1, Schedule M, par. 308, 28 Stat. 532. The importer protested that it should be assessed at 20 per cent., as a manufacture “of paper, or of which paper is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for,” under paragraph 313. The board decided that it should be assessed at 20 per cent., as “paper not specially provided for,” under paragraph 310. The only question here is as to the sufficiency of the protest for the action of the board. As the gummed paper is a manufacture of paper of which paper must be the component material of chief value, perhaps it would fall quite as properly under paragraph 313, but as the rate there is the same as under paragraph 310, it is right either way, and the government has nothing to complain of by way of appeal.

Decision affirmed.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

This is gummed paper for adhesive purposes. It was assessed by the collector at 30 per cent., as surface-coated paper, under Tariff Act Aug. 28, 1894, c. 349, §1, Schedule M, par. 308, 28 Stat. 532. The importer protested that it should be assessed at 20 per cent., as a manufacture “of paper, or of which paper is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for,” under paragraph 313. The board decided that it should be assessed at 20 per cent., as “paper not specially provided for,” under paragraph 310. The only question here is as to the sufficiency of the protest for the action of the board. As the gummed paper is a manufacture of paper of which paper must be the component material of chief value, perhaps it would fall quite as properly under paragraph 313, but as the rate there is the same as under paragraph 310, it is right either way, and the government has nothing to complain of by way of appeal.

Decision affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F. 1005, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hunter-circtsdny-1900.