Legal Opinion

Wiley v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided December 31, 1969No. C.D. 3950PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Donloh, Judge:

These two protests were consolidated for purposes of trial. The merchandise, in both cases, consists of articles imported from Japan. While the entry papers were not offered in evidence, testimony adduced on trial identifies the entry merchandise as motors with gears. There is in evidence a motor representative of the merchandise at bar, and the gear in the motor is evident.

The protested classification was under paragraph 353, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), with duty at 13% percent. Although…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gamble Vargish & Co. v. Untied StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. Shoten v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
  3. D. E. Sanford Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  4. Stor-All Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  5. Servo-Tek Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Styson Art Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  2. Ideal Toy Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
  3. Stor-All Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API