Legal Opinion

L. Tobert Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided April 24, 1952No. 56581; protest 153767-K (New York)PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It must be presumed that the collector exhausted consideration of said paragraph 339, supra, including its modified form, and was satisfied that the subject articles are not only household utensils but that they are illuminating articles as well, within the meaning of said paragraph when con*457sidered in its entirety. United States v. Lilly & Co. and Parke, Davis & Co. (14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 332, T. D. 41970). It was necessary, therefore, for the plaintiffs to establish not only that the decision of the collector was erroneous but that the plaintiffs’ claimed classification…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. Lilly & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Holdwire, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  2. L. Tobert Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  3. Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  4. F. W. Myers & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  5. National Starch Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API