The United States v. Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the judgment of the United States Customs Court, First Division, 62 Cust.Ct. 168, C.D. 3717, 295 F.Supp. 1115 (1969), sustaining the importer’s protest to the classification of bicycle seats as “Other parts of bicycles” under item 732.36, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) and holding them properly classifiable as “saddles” under item 790.30 TSUS. The Government appeals and we reverse.
The imports are represented by two exhibits in evidence. One is a conventionally formed bicycle seat of modern construction made of a heavy, impregnated, canvas-like,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ross Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
- Davar Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
- Andrew Fisher Cycle Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
3Cited by17 opinions
- Nippon Kogaku (USA), Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1972
- Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1997
- Clipper Belt Lacer Co., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1990
- General Methods Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.