Carl Matusek Shipping Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Wilson, Judge:
This protest is directed against the refusal of the collector to allow as drawback, under section 313, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 99 per centum of the duties which had been paid upon the importation of certain kerosene heaters and parts. Drawback was denied on the ground of alleged noncompliance with the provisions of sections 22.31-22.33 of the Customs Regulations, as amended.
*9The pertinent regulations herein involved are as follows:
Section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1953, T.D. 53318, 88 Treas. Dec. 186, 194:(c)…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of the Warren BridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- Leavenworth, Lawrence, & Galveston Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde ParkSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Swan & Finch Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- The Binghamton BridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mitsubishi International Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
- Swan Tricot Mills Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
- Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
- Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
- Johnson Motors, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.