Bendix Manufacturing Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Mollison, Judge:
The merchandise the subject of this protest is described on the invoices as “Carved Furniture Mouldings,” “Carved Furniture Beadings,” “Unfinished Mouldings,” and “Quarter-round Beadings.” It was assessed with duty at the rate of 40 per centum.ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 412 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for “wood moldings and carvings to be used in architectural and furniture decoration.”
The plaintiff claims that the articles in question are not “wood moldings” or “carvings,” but are, rather, “turnings.” The protest claim chiefly relied upon is that for duty at…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Marvel v. MerrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Sonn v. MagoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Swan v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- United States v. May Department Stores Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bailey-Mora Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- B. Axelrod & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
- Standard Brands Paint Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
- Best Moulding Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963