Border Brokerage Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
WilsoN, Judge:
The merchandise under protest was invoiced as “N423 Dipping Paint, with titanium,” “N429 Navaho Paint,” “N430 Doeskin,” “N431 Beige,” and “S-914 Silver Gray Dip Paste — with Titanium” (plaintiff’s exhibit 2, B. 17). The importations were classified and assessed by the collector under paragraph 24 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as chemical mixtures or alcoholic compounds not specially provided for, containing under 20 per centum alcohol, at the rate *17of 20 cents per pound plus 25 per centum ad valorem. The importer claims that the merchandise is properly dutiable under the provisions…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. CitroenSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Drakenfeld & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
- Comstock v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1948
- United States v. Meadows & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Plywood & Door Southern Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- Aceto Chemical Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
- Aceto Chemical Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
- International Paint Co. (Calif.), Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970