Legal Opinion

Border Brokerage Co., Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided October 5, 1972No. C.D. 4383; Protest 68/50596-27413PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RE, Judge:

The legal question presented in this case pertains to the proper classification, for customs duty purposes, of cer tain mercandise invoiced as “Dadoed Door Jambs H300 Sets 2/7 1/3”. It consists of two side pieces of wood, in which there has been cut a dado or groove, and a top piece without a groove.

The imported doorjamb sets were assessed with duty by the customs officials as an entirety, i.e., as a unit, as “[ajrticles not specifically provided for, of wood”, pursuant to item 207.00 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. They were consequently assessed with duty at the rate…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  2. United States v. Baldt Anchor, Chain & Forge Division of the Boston Metals Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Permagrain Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1985
  2. American Bayridge Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1998
  3. Clipper Belt Lacer Co., Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
  4. Oxford International Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API