Legal Opinion

United States v. Philipp Overseas, Inc.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 11, 1981No. C.A.D. 1263; No. 80-36PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rich, Judge.

This appeal is from the judgment of the United States Customs Court (now the United States Court of International Trade) in Philipp Overseas, Inc. v. United States, 84 Cust. Ct. 200, C.D. 4859, 496 F. Supp. 273 (1980), sustaining appellee’s complaint and holding that hot rolled stainless steel angles, which were annealed and pickled during the manufacturing process, are properly classified under Item *44609.82 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), as modified by T.D. 68-9, as hot rolled alloy steel angles, not drilled, not punched, and not otherwise advanced. The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Commercial Shearing & Stamping Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  2. Commercial Shearing & Stamping Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
  3. E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  4. Philipp Overseas, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1980
  5. American Mannex Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. United States v. Hemant Patel, Raoji Patel, Bridgewater Development Co., and Pacific Food Beverages, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
  2. Clipper Belt Lacer Co., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1990
  3. Trans-Border Customs Services, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1994
  4. Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1999
  5. Klockner, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1984

3 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