Legal Opinion

Walker Services v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided April 6, 1950No. C. D. 1230PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cole, Judge:

A shipment of merchandise, invoiced as “Tinted wool flocks (100% wool),” was exported from Toronto, Canada, and entered at the port of Boston, Mass., where it was classified as wool waste, not specially provided for, under a provision for such merchandise in paragraph 1105 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 1105), as amended by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, wherein the said amended paragraph is set forth in the following form:

Tariff Act of 1930, paragraph Description of Products Rate of Duty

1105 (a) and Wool and hair…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Geo. S. Bush & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1949
  2. United States v. Post Fish Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  3. United States v. Imperial Wall Paper Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
  2. C. J. Tower & Sons of Niagara, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  3. Emery v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
  4. Empire Wool Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
  5. Empire Wool Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951

2 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