Ignaz Strauss & Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
MollisoN, Judge:
The merchandise involved in the protests enumerated in the schedule attached to this decision consists of plastic back scratchers, which were assessed with duty at the rate of 25 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 409 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 53865 and T.D. 53877, for articles not specially provided for, wholly or partly manufactured of bamboo, by virture of the provisions of paragraph 1559(a) of the said act, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1137). The said paragraph 1559 (a) is the so-called “similitude”…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Pickhardt v. MerrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Latimer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Komada & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Murphy v. ArnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Simon v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
- Friedman v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
- Alex W. Block Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
- Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
- Beauti-Vue Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.