Legal Opinion

Akron v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided January 23, 1968No. C.D. 3259PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rao, Chief Judge:

The merchandise covered by the protests listed in the schedule of cases, attached to this decision and made a part hereof, consists of cast-iron garden furniture which was assessed with duty at the rate of 19 per centum ad valorem pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, for articles, not specially provided for, wholly or in chief value of base metal.

It is claimed in said protests that said merchandise is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lipman's v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  2. Schick X-Ray Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Teleflora Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1989
  2. Neco Electrical Products v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1990
  3. Unitron Import Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API