Woolart Mills, Inc. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Foed, Judge:
The merchandise the subject of this timely protest is described on the invoices as “Silk noils.” It was assessed by the collector of customs at the port of Boston with duty at the rate of *45117% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1201, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Protocol of Terms of Accession by Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 90 Treas. Dec. 234, T.D. 53865, supplemented by Presidential proclamation, 90 Treas. Dec. 280, T.D. 53877, which provides as follows:
Silk partially manufactured, including total or partial degumming other than in the reeling…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Latimer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Patton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Smillie & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
- Willits & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1923
- Seeberger v. CastroSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Colley v. Eastern Coal Corp.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1971
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Company v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
- Penson v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
- Woolart Mills, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969