19 U.S.C. § 121
Repealed. June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 651(a)(1), 46 Stat. 762, eff. June 18, 1930
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1927–1936 · leading case: Brooks v. Mandel-Witte Co., 54 F.2d 992 (2d Cir. 1932).
Brooks v. Mandel-Witte Co., 54 F.2d 992 (2d Cir. 1932). “Stern, a Customs House broker, on January 17, 1925, contracted with appellee, who was engaged in importing artificial flowers and feathers at the port of New York, to represent it in obtaining a reduction and refund of excess customs duties on artificial flowers under the Tariff…”
Alksne v. United States, 39 F.2d 62 (1st Cir. 1930). “813, and title 4, § 593(b) of the Tariff Act of 1922 (19 USCA §§ 121, 497). The court below, while three grounds of forfeiture were alleged, ordered the vessel and cargo forfeited under section 4377 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (46 USCA § 325) on the ground that…”
Riccomini v. United States, 69 F.2d 480 (9th Cir. 1934). “The exactions were pursuant to paragraph 802 of schedule 8, § 1, of the Tariff Act of 1922 (19 USCA § 121, Schedule 8, par. 802). The second cause of action, in language similar to the first, asks for $4,220 alleged to have been illegally exacted on the 19th day of April, 1929,…”
Wishart v. United States, 29 F.2d 103 (8th Cir. 1928). “d without thereafter securing a permit to bring the said merchandise into the United States, and without unlading the same in the presence of a customs officer of the United States, and without securing a permit to bring said intoxicating liquor into the United States from the…”
Musey v. United States, 37 F.2d 673 (5th Cir. 1930). “897 (19 USCA § 121, schedule 8). We conclude that the indictment was sufficient to enable appellants to prepare their defense and to protect themselves against a subsequent prosecution, and that the averments as to smuggling contained in it charged an offense.”
Du Pont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Prods. Co., 6 F. Supp. 859 (E.D.N.Y 1934). “1213 [19 USCA § 121, par. 1213]): “Products of cellulose, not compounded, whether known as visea, cellophane, or by any other name * * *.”
The Przemysl, 23 F.2d 336 (E.D. La. 1927). “The libel against the cargo charges an alleged violation of paragraph 813 of Schedule 8 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (19 USCA § 121 [Comp. St. § 5841a]), supra, by its being brought into the United States without a permit from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.”
Japan Imp. Co. v. United States, 86 F.2d 124 (C.C.P.A. 1936). “In the cases cited by the government, coal-tar- dyes were imported under the Tariff Act of 1922, and were appraised at the American selling price under paragraph 28, § 1, of said acc ( 19 U.S.C.A. § 121 , par. 28). That paragraph was, in substance, as follows: “Par.”
The Sebastopol, 56 F.2d 590 (2d Cir. 1932). “Paragraph 813 of Schedule 8 of section 1 (19 USCA § 121, par. 813) reads as follows: “No wines, spirits, or other liquors or articles provided for in this schedule containing one-half of 1 per centum or more of alcohol shall be imported or permitted entry except on a permit…”
United States v. Cargo of Intoxicating Liquor ex British Schooner Patara, 40 F.2d 74 (E.D.N.Y 1930). “tions of the first and second causes of forfeiture, and that the said cargo of liquors, enumerating them and the value, entered into the port of New York without the master of said vessel or any other person connected therewith having a permit issued by the Commissioner of…”
United States v. McKetrick, 9 F. Supp. 495 (S.D.N.Y. 1934). “802 (19 USCA § 121, Schedule 8, par. 802),- were subject to a specific duty of $5 per proof gallon; consequently, the computation of' the duty involved merely a matter of multiplication of the number of gallons by the amount of $5 fixed as the duty.”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 22 F.2d 109 (1st Cir. 1927). “858, 897 [19 USCA § 121]), imposing a duty on brandy and other spirits imported from a foreign country into the United States? The government’s evidence tended to prove that an officer of the Coast Guard, on the night of November 13,1926, while on the beach at Dennisport, had…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.