Smith v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Bao, Chief Judge:
The merchandise involved in this protest is described in the invoice as “Small Diamond Mesh Metal Lath Black Asphalt Painted”. It was classified as articles of steel, not specially provided for, whether partly or wholly manufactured, in paragraph 397 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 duty at the rate of 19 per centum ad valorem was imposed.
The principal claim of plaintiff is that this merchandise is properly dutiable under paragraph 308 of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ishimitsu v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
- Kleinberger v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- Lunham & Moore v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
- Hill v. R. D. Wood & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1908
- Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
3Cited by4 opinions
- Burn Strauss, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
- Burn Strauss, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
- W. R. Filbin & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1974
- W. R. Filbin & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970