Legal Opinion

U.S.D. Importing Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided February 26, 1960No. 63864; protests 322576-K, etc. (Los Angeles)PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These three protests have been limited to the merchandise represented by the invoice items enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof. The articles were classified under the eo nomme provision for goggles in paragraph 225 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 54108 or T.D. 51802, and assessed with duty either at the rate of 19 per centum ad valorem, or 20 per centum ad valorem, depending on the date of entry of the merchandise. Plaintiffs claim that the items in question are not goggles, but that they are properly classifiable as…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. C. B. Smith Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  2. U.S. Divers Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  3. B. Levy & Sons v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API