Legal Opinion

Vandegrift Forwarding Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided September 25, 1957No. C. D. 1915PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rao, Judge:

This case arises by way of protest against the collector’s classification of so-called Arter variable speed control gears, within the provisions of paragraph 368 (a) (1) (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as devices for controlling the speed of arbors, drums, or disks, and his assessment of duty thereon at the rate of $4.50 each, plus 65 per centum ad valorem. The contention is made that this merchandise is dutiable at only 15 per centum ad valorem, as parts of machine tools, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 372 of said act, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. United States v. American Steel & Copper Plate Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. Welte v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
  4. Loewenthal v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  5. United States v. WanamakerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. F. W. Myers & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  2. Jack & Jill Togs, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  3. M. B. I. Export & Import, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  4. Morey Machinery Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API