Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kroder Reubel Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 15, 1960No. C.D. 2186Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Ford, Judge:

The determination by the majority that the involved brass pole rings are properly dutiable at 15 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 339 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T.D. 51802, and T.D. 51909, would appear to be based primarily upon their interpretation of the recent decision of our appellate court in United States v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company, 47 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 1, C.A.D. 719. The appellate court, in that case, made the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Klipstein v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
  2. Pacific Guano & Fertilizer Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. United States v. DowningCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  4. Goldsmith's Sons v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  5. California Wool Growers Ass'n v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API