Legal Opinion
Besler v. United States
United States Customs Court
Decided January 13, 1969No. P69/10; protests 67/26820-4223, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/11; protests 67/51061, etc. (Mobile); No. P69/12; protests 67/79010, etc. (Baltimore); No. P69/13; protests 67/80811-5495,etc. (Chicago); No. P69/14; protests 68/31375-7835,etc. (Chicago); No. P69/15; protests 66/8164, etc. (Boston); No. P69/16; protests 67/62237, etc. (Boston); No. P69/17; protests 66/78386-2643, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/18; protests 66/77278-2841, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/19; protests 66/78623-3037, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/20; protests 67/26828-4232, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/21; protests 67/66707-5209, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/22; protests 68/7995-6486 and 68/8944-6563 (Chicago)Published
1Opinion of the CourtWatsoN, J.
In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of artificial flowers, trees, foliage, fruits, vegetables, grasses, or grains, and articles made of the foregoing, in chief value of plastic, assembled in the same manner as the merchandise the subject of Armbee Corporation et al. v. United States (60 Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 3278) and Zunold Trading Corporation et al. v. United States (60 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 3279), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Armbee Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
- Zunold Trading Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968