Case ID: cust-ct_10/html/0479-05.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lawrence, J. It", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 48396.
    Protest 837674-G of Butler Bros. (Seattle).
   Opinion by

Lawrence, J. It

was conclusively established that the involved metal figures and attached chains are similar to those the subject of Woolworth v. United States (26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the figures and chains in question w'ere held dutiable as silver-plated household utensils at 50 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed. The protest was overruled in all other respects.

ERRATA In volume 8, United States Customs Court Reports, the following changes should be made: Abstract 46819, page 440. The opinion should read as follows: Opinion by Kincheloe, J. In view of the holding in Riley v. United States (8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 116, T. D. 37225), which was recently called to the court’s attention, wherein certain woven woolen spreads used to cover the legs and body in automobiles, on couches, or in carriages were held not dutiable as blankets, the merchandise in question was held dutiable as manufactures of cotton, not specially provided for, at 40 percent under pragraph 923' as claimed. Abstract 47149, page 511. In the opinion, next to last line, the citation “(T. D. 41784)” should read “(15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 94, T. D. 42183).”  
    ERRATA In volume 8, United States Customs Court Reports, the following changes should be made: Abstract 46819, page 440. The opinion should read as follows: Opinion by Kincheloe, J. In view of the holding in Riley v. United States (8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 116, T. D. 37225), which was recently called to the court’s attention, wherein certain woven woolen spreads used to cover the legs and body in automobiles, on couches, or in carriages were held not dutiable as blankets, the merchandise in question was held dutiable as manufactures of cotton, not specially provided for, at 40 percent under pragraph 923' as claimed. Abstract 47149, page 511. In the opinion, next to last line, the citation “(T. D. 41784)” should read “(15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 94, T. D. 42183).”