Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Close v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 16, 1961No. 66215; protests 59/21355, etc. (Seattle)Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION

Johnson, Judge:

For the reasons stated below, I concur in the decision of my colleague.

The merchandise involved in this case consists of various types of prepared or preserved pork, assessed with duty on liquidation or reliquidation at 3% cents per pound under paragraph 703 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

This case has been submitted upon a stipulation of counsel for the respective parties and upon the entries and the accompanying papers transmitted to the court by the collector. Several different fact situations are presented.

1. Entries numbered 020-146, 020-165, 020-167, and…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. John P. Herber & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
  2. Tower v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  3. United States v. Kurtz, Stuböeck & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
  4. States v. StrausCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
  5. United States v. Andrews & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926

20 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