Legal Opinion

Eitinger Bead Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided August 26, 1946No. (C. D. 1020)PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Oliveh, Presiding Judge:

The protest in this case covers certain “Alabaster Beads (Translucent)” assessed with duty at 45 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1503 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as beads in imitation of precious or semiprecious stones and claimed by the plaintiff to be properly dutiable at 35 per centum ad valorem, under the same paragraph as beads, not specially provided for.

The pertinent portions of paragraph 1503 read as follows:

Pab. 1503. * * * beads, * * * not specially provided for, 35 per centum ad valorem; * * * all other beads in imitation of precious or semiprecious…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Eitinger Bead Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
  2. United States v. JudaeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Cohn & Rosenberger, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  2. Coro, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1947
  3. Eitinger Bead Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
  4. Indestructible Pearl Bead Makers, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1948
  5. Kurtz Importing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951

27 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