Legal Opinion
PPG Industries, Inc. v. United States
United States Customs Court
Decided May 23, 1980No. C.R.D. 80-5; Consolidated Court No. 77-10-04458PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Boe, Judge:
In the above-entitled consolidated action, the merchandise in question consisting of bipolar diaphragm electrolyzers and parts were entered at the ports of entry at Houston and Galveston, Tex., Philadelphia, Pa., and New Orleans, La., between 1969 and 1973. The plaintiff claiming the merchandise in question through error and mistake was not classified as experimental and, accordingly free from duty, has brought the within action pursuant to sections 1514(a)(7) and 1520(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. section 1582(a). 19 U.S.C section 1520(c)(1) provides as follows:(c) Reliquidation of entry. —…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Land v. DollarSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Gibbs v. BuckSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Simon Zunamon v. W. G. Brown, J. P. Brown, Sr., and J. E. (Doc) BrownCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1969
- Andy W. McBeath v. Inter-American Citizens for Decency CommitteeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
- Hambro Automotive Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mittal Canada, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2006
- Okaya (USA), Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2003
- PPG Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1982