Hall v. United States
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Morganite, Inc. v. United States (United States Customs Court 1953)
- Stanley Doggett, Inc. v. United States (United States Customs Court 1943)
- Drakenfeld & Co. v. United States (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1919)
- Bischoff v. United States (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1916)
- Loewenthal v. United States (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1915)
- Knauth v. United States (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1913)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The question in this case is whether the importations, which were women’s dress goods of wool embroidered by hand or machinery, were properly classified for duty under paragraph 369 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule K, 30 Stat. 184 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1667], or whether they should have been classified under paragraph 371 of that act (30 Stat. 185 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1667]). We should have no doubt upon the question were it not for the effect which is to be given to the qualifying words in paragraph 369, “not specially provided for in this act,” and the absence of similar qualifying words in paragraph 371. The opinion of Mr. Appraiser De Vries, which was adopted by the Board of General Appraisers, presents a strong argument in favor of a classification under paragraph 369, and another opinion by him to the same effect was adopted by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Thomas v. Wannamaker, 129 Fed. 92, 63 C. C. A. 594. With some hesitation, but recognizing the propriety of uniformity of decision between courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction when that is practicable without yielding our clear convictions, we conclude to affirm the decision of the court below affirming the decision of the Board of General Appraisers.
Ordered accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.