Legal Opinion

Artgift Corp. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided March 12, 1953No. 57135; protest 172316-K (New York)PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise in question consists of a metal statuette, securely affixed to a wooden base, and a removable glass dome used therewith. The collector classified the articles as separate entities. Duty was assessed *373on the statuettes attached- to the base at the rate of 22K per centum ad valorem under paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, as metal articles, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer. The glass domes were classified as blown glass articles, not specially…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Altman & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Trans Atlantic Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  2. E. M. Stevens Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  3. E. M. Stevens Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  4. M. H. Garvey Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  5. Mattel, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API