Legal Opinion

Remington Rand Div. of Sperry Rand Corp. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided December 3, 1962No. C.D. 2377PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Foed, Judge:

The merchandise the subject of this protest consists of rechargeable flashlights, which were classified by the collector of customs under the provisions of paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which, so far as is pertinent herein, provides as follows:

******* articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, * * * ; all the foregoing, and parts thereof, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not specially provided for, 35 per centum ad valorem.

Duty was so assessed under said act, as originally enacted, since “flashlights” were…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Biddle Purchasing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  2. Tower v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Continental Exchange, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  2. Remington Rand Div. of Sperry Rand Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API