Corbitt & Macleay Co. v. United States

Citations

• 153 F. 648
• 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5120

Syllabus

<p>t. Customs Duties — Classification—Burlaps—Double-Warp Bagging.</p> <p>The provision for “burlaps,” in Tariff Act Aug. 27, 1894, c. 349, § 2, Free List. par. 424%, 28 Stat. 539, does not include so-called double-warp Dundee bagging.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Interpretation of commercial and trade terms in tariff laws, see note to Dennison Mfg. Co. v. United States, 18 C. C. A. 545.]</p> <p>2. Same — Protest—Sufficiency—Wrong Claim.</p> <p>Goods, which should have been classified free of duty under a paragraph relating to “jute bagging,” were asserted in the importers’ protest to be free under a paragraph relating to “burlaps,” and there was no suggestion that the importers at the time of filing the protest had in mind the former provision. Held, that the protest did not set forth the importers’ objections “distinctly and specifically,” within the meaning of Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, § 14, 26 Stat. 137 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933].</p>