Winkler-Koch Engineering Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Lawkence, Judge:'
Certain imported merchandise described in the record as “Seamless hot rolled A. P. I. Casings” was classified by the collector of customs pursuant to the provision in paragraph 328 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 328) for “all other finished or unfinished iron or steel tubes not specially provided for,” *27and duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 25 per centum ad. valorem. The initials A. P. I. are an abbreviation for the words American Petroleum Institute.
Although it is claimed in the protest that the merchandise should be classified as “pipes” in said…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
- Magone v. HellerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- United States v. FrankCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
- United States v. Snow's United States Sample Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
- Carter v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
- United Supply & Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
- Baron Tube Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
- Tower v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
- C. Tennant Sons & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.