Legal Opinion

Greatrex, Ltd. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided August 19, 1954No. C. D. 1639PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Lawrence, Judge:

Certain imported electric flatirons were classified by the collector of customs as household utensils pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 339 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 339), and duty was imposed thereon at the rate of 40 per centum ad valorem.

Plaintiffs, by their protest, claim that the merchandise should be classified as articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device and dutiable, accordingly, at 15 per centum ad valorem as provided in paragraph 353 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 353), as modified by the General…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Klipstein v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
  2. Krusi v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  3. United States v. BorgfeldtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  4. Kubie v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  5. United States v. International Forwarding Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Abraham v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  2. Alexanders Dept. Stores, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  3. Ambrosio v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  4. Ascot, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  5. Ascot, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957

29 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