Victor v. United States

128 F. 472, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4692
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 1904
DocketNo. 3,356
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 128 F. 472 (Victor v. United States) 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
Victor v. United States, 128 F. 472, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4692 (circtsdny 1904).

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

The tariff law by paragraph 192, Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, 30 Stat. 167 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645], provides for a dutj' on “zinc in blocks or pigs, Ij4c. per pound; in sheets, 2c. per pound.” And by paragraph 193, Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § t, Schedule C, 30 Stat. 167 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645], 011 “articles or wares not specially provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of * * * nickel, * * * zinc, * * * and whether partly or wholly manufactured,” of 45 per cent, ad valorem. This importation is of zinc in sheets, nickel-plated. It is claimed by the importer that they are in fact zinc in sheets, and therefore come within .paragraph 192, and that they are dutiable at 2 cents per pound only. It is true that they are zinc in sheets, but they are more than that. ' Zinc in sheets does not accurately cover them. It requires the added description of “nickel-platéd” to include them. Therefore they do not fall exactly or substantially within paragraph 192. They are articles or wares composed of zinc and nickel, wholly within the description of paragraph 193. Therefore the assessment of 43 per cent, ad valorem appears to be correct.

Decision affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. American Nickeloid Co.
50 C.C.P.A. 8 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1962)
American Nickeloid Co. v. United States
47 Cust. Ct. 160 (U.S. Customs Court, 1961)
Baker Ice Machine Co. v. United States
4 Cust. Ct. 22 (U.S. Customs Court, 1940)
United States v. Sutherland International Despatch
21 C.C.P.A. 264 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1933)
Hirsch v. United States
4 Ct. Cust. 82 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 F. 472, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-v-united-states-circtsdny-1904.