Legal Opinion

O. E. M. Corp. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 12, 1963No. C.D. 2402PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Laweence, Judge:

Protests 60/25749 and 60/28685, filed by plaintiff herein, were consolidated for the purpose of trial and disposition.

The importations in controversy are described on the consular invoices as “ ‘E.M.O.’ Inhalers” and “Oxford Inflating Bellows,” with other words of description, in combination also known as “E.M.O. Anaesthetic Outfit.” The articles were classified by the collector of customs as surgical instruments, composed wholly or in part of metal, in paragraph 859 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 359), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. May Department Stores Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. United States v. Kny-Scheerer Corp. of AmericaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. American Rusch Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  2. Carmichael International Service, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  3. W. J. Byrnes & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  4. James G. Wiley Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  5. Schick X-Ray Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API