Legal Opinion

James C. Goff Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided September 19, 1968No. R.D. 11581; Entry Nos. 497; F82PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Wilson, Judge:

The above two appeals were not by formal order specifically consolidated for purposes of trial. Plowever, counsel tried and briefed the appeals as though consolidated, and the court will dispose of the appeals on that basis.

The imported merchandise consists of so-called Gullhogens Standard Portland Cement conforming to type I ASTM C-150-55, and Gullhogens Eapid Hardening Cement conforming to type III ASTM C-150-55. This cement was manufactured by Gullhogens Cement *507(Stockholm), AB, at its plant in Skovde, Sweden. Both types of cement were imported in each appeal.

The cement in…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Royal Cathay Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. Transcontinental Petroleum Co. v. Interocean Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1919
  3. C. J. Tower & Sons of Niagara, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  4. Midland Industrial Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  5. Sterling International Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. James C. Goff Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API