Legal Opinion

American Mannex Corp. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided January 4, 1966No. C.D. 2608PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Nichols, Judge:

The merchandise involved in these cases, consolidated at the trial, consists of limited service steel casing with plain ends which are beveled but not threaded. It was assessed with duty at 7% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 312 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 52739, as structural shapes, advanced beyond hammering, rolling, or casting. It is claimed to be dutiable under said paragraph at one-tenth of 1 cent per pound as structural shapes, not advanced beyond hammering, rolling, or casting.

*32Th…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  2. Rico Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
  3. United Supply & Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
  4. Baron Tube Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  5. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Commercial Shearing & Stamping Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  2. United States v. Philipp Overseas, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
  3. E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  4. John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1974
  5. Baron Tube Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API