W. W. Thomas & Co. v. United States

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

W. W. Thomas & Co. v. United States

140 F. 93, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4762

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

DecidedJune 1, 1905

DocketNo. 3,897

StatusPublished

This text of 140 F. 93 (W. W. Thomas & Co. 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

W. W. Thomas & Co. v. United States, 140 F. 93, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4762 (circtsdny 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The merchandise in question consists of a powder made from raw silk, used in the manufacture of wall paper and artificial flowers, and was returned for duty at 50 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 391 of the tariff act of 1897, as a manufacture of silk; the importer claiming that it was dutiable only at 20 per cent, ad valorem, under section 6 of said act, as an unenumerated manufactured article not specially provided for. Even if this article be not a manufacture of silk in the sense in which that term is used in paragraph 391 of the silk schedule, it is at least properly dutiable under section 7 by similitude, as most nearly resembling manufactures of silk in material, quality, texture, and use.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

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

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The merchandise in question consists of a powder made from raw silk, used in the manufacture of wall paper and artificial flowers, and was returned for duty at 50 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 391 of the tariff act of 1897, as a manufacture of silk; the importer claiming that it was dutiable only at 20 per cent, ad valorem, under section 6 of said act, as an unenumerated manufactured article not specially provided for. Even if this article be not a manufacture of silk in the sense in which that term is used in paragraph 391 of the silk schedule, it is at least properly dutiable under section 7 by similitude, as most nearly resembling manufactures of silk in material, quality, texture, and use.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 F. 93, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-w-thomas-co-v-united-states-circtsdny-1905.