Irving W. Rice & Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Landis, Judge:
This protest involves merchandise imported from Japan described on the invoice as B.-479 extension mirrors, in copper coated steel, nickel/chrome plated, 7 inches in diameter, magnifying and plain.1 The one plain side is a conventional mirror. The other, magnifying side, is for close shaving and cosmetic work on the face. The mirrors have a rim or frame of base metal.
Plaintiff claims that the extension mirrors, which customs at New York assessed at 33 per centum ad valorem under TSUS (Tariff Schedules of the United States) item 544.51, are properly dutiable at only 17 per centum…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- M. H. Pulaski Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
- Broadway Hale Stores, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
- Engine Imports, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
3Cited by1 opinion
- Oxford International Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1974