Legal Opinion

Block v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided December 10, 1964No. C. D. 2496PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WxlsoN, Judge:

Plaintiff in this case limited its protest to an item described on the commercial invoices as a “Silk Ball,” designated as No. 14093-B.

The imported merchandise was classified under paragraph 1518(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Protocol of Terms of Accession by Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 53865, and T.D. 53877, as artificial fruit in chief value of yarns, threads, and filaments and was assessed with duty at the rate of 50 per centum ad valorem. The imported articles are claimed properly duitable under paragraph 1312 of the Tariff…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Joseph Markovits, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
  2. Cochran Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
  3. Mottahedeh Creations, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni Imperial Rug Mills, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. Joseph Markovits, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  3. Frank P. Dow Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API