Legal Opinion

Bluefries New York, Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 20, 1958No. C. D. 2010PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mollison, Judge:

The merchandise the subject of this protest consists of animal hair, which was assessed with duty at the rate of 5 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1524, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Presidential proclamation relating to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, reading as follows—

Hair, curled, suitable for beds or mattresses * * *.

The protest claim is for free entry under the provision in paragraph 1688 of the said act for—

*396Hair of horse, cattle, and other animals, cleaned or uneleaned, drawn or undrawn, but unmanufactured, not…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Worthington v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Kahlen v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  3. Lackawanna Steel Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
  4. United States v. Amerman & PattersonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
  5. Dorf International, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. National Carloading Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  2. Corrigan Dispatch Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API