Legal Opinion

Drittler v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided January 8, 1964No. 68213. protests 60/22176, etc. (Detroit)PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The protests enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, involve merchandise that is generally described on the invoices as lumber cores, birch cores, or edge-glued hardwood lumber. Duty was levied thereon at the rate of 16% per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 412 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 52373, for manufactures of wood, not specially provided for.

Plaintiff’s principal claim is for free entry under the provision in paragraph 1803(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 51802, for “sawed lumber *228and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. B. A. McKenzie & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  2. C. S. Emery & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  3. Holmes v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Frampton v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  2. C. B. Smith Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  3. Humphreys v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  4. Humphreys v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API