Legal Opinion

Ace Importing Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided March 6, 1963No. 67488; protests 58/15516, etc. (New York.)PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise involved in these four protests is described on the invoices as “Plastic Water Ball” or “Plastic Water Balls” and was classified by similitude in use to blown glass articles, not cut or engraved, under paragraph 218(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 51802, supple-*227merited by T.D. 51898, and paragraph 1559 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by Public Law 768, section 201 (68 Stat. part 1, p. 1137), and assessed with duty at the rate of 50 per centum ad valorem. Plaintiff claims that the articles in question are properly dutiable at only 30…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. Stouffer Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  2. Salentine & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  3. Shackman v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  4. Ace Importing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
  5. Oviatt Importing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1942

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. B. Shackman & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  2. Bridge Novelty Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  3. Hudson Shipping Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  4. Koscherak Bros. Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  5. Kurt S. Adler, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969

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

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

Powered by the Exa API