Legal Opinion

Haan v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided August 27, 1971No. C.D. 4260; Protests 68/31495-101436, 68/54337-104761PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RE, Judge.

The question presented in these two protests consolidated for purposes of trial, pertains to the proper classification, for customs duty purposes, of certain merchandise described on the invoices as “Continent, Headrest”, and “headrests ‘Standard’ model”. The merchandise was classified by the customs officials under item 727.80 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States as “[pillows, cushions, mattresses, and similar furnishings”, and, depending upon the date of entry, was assessed with duty at the rate of 20 per centum or 19 per centum ad valorem.

Plaintiffs have protested the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Nomura (America) Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  2. Nomura (America) Corp. v. The United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
  3. Foster Wheeler Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  4. Mattel, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  5. Novelty Import Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Ameliotex, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1976
  2. Oxford International Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
  3. Porter v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979
  4. Sprouse Reitz & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
  5. Oxford International Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1974

6 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