Legal Opinion

Geo. H. McFadden & Bros. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided May 27, 1963No. C.D. 2401PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ford, J udge:

The merchandise covered by the above protest was described on the invoice as “ ‘Perlón’ off-grade untwisted on stretchcops” and was classified under the provisions of paragraph 1301 of the Tariff Act of 1980, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, as yarns of rayon or other synthetic textile, etc., and assessed with duty at the rate of 22y2 per centum ad valorem.

It is the contention of plaintiff herein that said merchandise is properly dutiable at the rate of 21 per centum ad…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kahlen v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Chester Tricot Mills, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. Wedemann & Godknecht, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  3. Allen Forwarding Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1972
  4. C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  5. Arden Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API