Legal Opinion

Ace Importing Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided May 17, 1960No. 64185; protest 330455-K (New York)PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This protest has been limited to the merchandise, identified on the invoice as item “#63/3” and described as “Toy, Blower Ball 75mm,” which was assessed with duty at the rate of 50 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 218(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 51802, supplemented by T.D. 51898, as blown glass articles, not cut or engraved. Plaintiff claims that the merchandise is properly dutiable at the rate of 30 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 218(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, *469as modified by T.D. 53865, supplemented by T.D. 53877,…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. William Adams, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. Ace Importing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
  3. Riekes Crisa Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1980
  4. Frank P. Dow Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  5. Poland Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970

4 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