Legal Opinion

Sherwin International, Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 17, 1965No. 69382; protest 62/2949 (Los Angeles)PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rao, Judge:

Merchandise described on the invoice accompanying the entry covered by the above-enumerated protest as “ ‘Itomi’ Happy Homs, Model 45” upon importation at the port of Los Angeles was classified by the collector of customs as parts of bicycles in paragraph 371 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.O. § 1001, par. 371), and duty was imposed thereon at the rate of 30 per centum ad valorem.

By timely protest filed pursuant to section 514 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 1001, sec. 1514), plaintiff herein protests said classification and duty assessment. Although the protest makes various…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. G. Joannou Cycle Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  2. United States v. American Bead Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Victoria Distributors, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  2. United Import Sales, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  3. Ace Importing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  4. Barham v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  5. Bruce Duncan Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967

35 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