Legal Opinion

Joseph Markovits, Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 7, 1967No. C.D. 3024PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Watson, Judge:

The subject merchandise in the case at bar consists of two items, No. 70930 and No. 3101, described respectively on *488the invoice as “Beads cluster” and “Glass beads cattail.” The items in question were classified as artificial flowers, at the rate of 50 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1518(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Protocol of Terms of Accession by Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 53865 and T.D. 53877, as artificial flowers, wholly or in chief value of beads.

Plaintiff claims the items are properly dutiable under paragraph 1503…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Joseph Markovits, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
  2. Cochran Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
  3. Alpine Importers of Calif. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  4. Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni Imperial Rug Mills, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  5. Block v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mission Bay Campland, Inc. v. Sumner Financial Corp.District Court, M.D. Florida · 1976
  2. 381651 Alberta, Ltd. v. 279298 ALBERTADistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API