Arnold Sorensin Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
WmsoN, Judge:
The imported merchandise in this case consists of certain fish, designated as “Dantsh Sprats in Oil” on the commercial invoice and “Sprats in Oil” on the consular invoice. The collector classified the importation under paragraph 718 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as fish in oil and levied duty thereon at the rate of 30 per centum ad valorem. Under the protest, the importer claims the involved product properly classifiable under paragraph 718 (a), as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 52739, supplemented by Presidential…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Knauth v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- Neuman v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- United States v. HaakerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- United States v. RosensteinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
- United States v. SmithCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- A. V. Olsson Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
- Adolph Goldmark & Son Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
- Adolph Goldmark & Sons Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
- Ameln Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
- Ameln Bros., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.