Strauss v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
DONLON, Judge:
The issue here is whether bubble gum is “an edible preparation for human consumption.” If it is, the Torquay protocol modification (T.D. 52739) of paragraph 1558 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is not applicable. If bubble gum is not “an edible preparation for human consumption,” it is conceded that it is entitled to the benefits of this Torquay protocol modified rate.
The collector classified the bubble gum as “an edible preparation for human consumption” and assessed duty at the unmodified rate of 20 per centum ad valorem. Plaintiff contends that bubble gum is not “an edible…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- P. John Hanrahan, Inc., Trans. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
- Schall & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
3Cited by14 opinions
- A. W. Fenton Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
- A. Newberg & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
- A. Newberg & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
- Al-Tray Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
- Altray Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.