Legal Opinion

Anderson v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided April 15, 1953No. 57258; protest 159899-K (Seattle)PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ford, Judge:

The question involved in this case is the proper classification of certain machines which the collector classified as machines, not specially provided for, and upon which he assessed duty at the rate of 27}í per centum ad valorem' under paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Plaintiff claim's said merchandise to be properly dutiable at only 15 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 372 of said act, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs 'and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, as “Machines, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for,” other than wrapping and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Clutsom Machines, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1948
  2. A. Tanzi Engineering Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1952
  3. Yardley of London, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United-Carr Fastener Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. United Carr Fastener Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
  3. Mannesmann-Meer, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  4. United States v. Mannesmann-Meer, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API