Legal Opinion

Thornley & Pitt Misco, Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided March 20, 1967No. C.D. 2926PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rao, Chief Judge:

The merchandise which forms the subject of the above-enumerated protest, described on the commercial invoice as “ONE - No. 15 Instructional Pelton Wheel,” was classified for customs duty purposes upon importation through the port of San Francisco as “Laboratory Apparatus, other,” in paragraph 360 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, and was subjected to duty at the rate of 25*4 per centum ad valorem.

The original protest claim for duty at 15 per…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Simon v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  2. A. W. Fenton Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  3. General Electric Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Schick X-Ray Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  2. Applied Research Laboratories, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  3. Cengar U. S., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  4. B. & K. Instruments, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API