Legal Opinion

Fred Roberts Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 12, 1961No. C.D. 2265PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mollison, Judge:

The articles the subject of this protest are described on the invoice as “Battery operated shoe brush” and were assessed with duty by the collector of customs at the rate of 35 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1506 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D.’s 53865 and 53877, for—

Brushes, not specially provided for (except paint brushes).

*255Although, various claims are made in the protest for classification under other tariff provisions, none of which has been specifically abandoned, it appears that the claim relied upon by the plaintiff is for duty at…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bruce Duncan Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
  2. Kayser & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. United States v. Electrolux Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
  4. Keer, Maurer Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  5. Wallace Pencil Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Foster Wheeler Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  2. Kaysons Import Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  3. Household Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  4. Zwiebel v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  5. Link-Belt Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967

3 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