Legal Opinion
Boll v. United States
United States Customs Court
Decided June 9, 1955No. C. D. 1707PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Lawrence, Judge:
The imported articles in controversy are described in tbe record as “Incandescent electric light bulbs with metal filaments, No. 4” and are used in connection with Guedel laryngoscopes. They were classified by the collector of customs as parts of surgical instruments, and duty was imposed thereon at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem in accordance with the terms of paragraph 359 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. O. § 1001, par. 359), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (84 Treas. Dec. 403, T. D. 52373, and 85 Treas. Dec. 116, T.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Akridge v. NobleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. American Steel & Copper Plate Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Welte v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979
- American Rusch Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
- Carmichael International Service, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969