Keer, Maurer Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
LawRence, Judge:
A machine manufactured in Germany and described on the invoice as “1 (one) ‘Helios’ Notary Window Punching and Patching Machine Model 31 J” was classified by the collector of customs as an article having as an essential feature an electrical element or device in paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 353), as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T.D. 52739, and duty was imposed thereon at the rate of 13% per centum ad valorem.
Plaintiff contends that the importation does not have as an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
- Sullivan v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
3Cited by18 opinions
- Arnhold Ceramics, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- Rembar Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- Miller v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
- Consolidated International Equipment & Supply Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.