Legal Opinion

Continental Fwdg. Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided April 10, 1969No. R.D. 11659; Entry No. 810129, etcPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Watson, Judge:

These consolidated appeals concern the correctness of appraisement of certain binoculars exported from Japan at so-called “MITI” prices. “MITI” indicates Ministry of International Trade and Industry, an administrative agency of the Japanese government which controlled exports through licenses, issued on proof of payment in an approved amount of foreign currency.

*916The question has been the subject of prior litigation. United States v. Continental Forwarding, Inc., 53 CCPA 105, C.A.D. 885 (1966), affirming Continental Forwarding, Inc. v. United States, 52 Cust. Ct. 629, A.R.D. 171…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. Baar & Beards, Inc.United States Customs Court · 1958
  2. Continental Forwarding, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  3. Continental Forwarding, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  4. United States v. Biddle Purchasing Co.United States Customs Court · 1948
  5. Baar & Beards, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. United States v. Continental Forwarding Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
  3. United States v. Continental Fwdg. Co.United States Customs Court · 1970
  4. Philip J. Bernstein Enterprises v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API