Goldkamp v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge:
This is a protest against the collector’s assessment of duty on merchandise, described on the entry as iron pipe fittings and rubber washers, at 22% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, as articles of metal, not specially provided for. It is claimed that the merchandise is entitled to free entry under paragraph 1615 (a) of said tariff act, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, or, if dutiable, at ZT% cents per ton under paragraph 301, as modified, as scrap; or…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Coastwise Steamship & Barge Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
- Thornley & Pitt v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
- Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
- Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
- Britton v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1952
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Coppersmith v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
- American Express Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
- Mi-Scott International Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1989
- United States v. Titan Metals Corp.United States Court of International Trade · 2019
- Universal Form Clamp Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967