Legal Opinion

United Merchandising Corp. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided May 25, 1959No. 63100; protest 330048-K (Los Angeles)PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ford, Judge:

Certain air pumps used for inflating air mattresses, life rafts, and all types of inflatable objects were assessed with duty at 20 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108.

Plaintiffs, by timely amendment to the protest, claim the pumps to be properly dutiable at 12 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, supra, as machines.

The pertinent provisions of the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
  2. General Systems Service, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  3. Laszlo v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1938
  4. Linread Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  5. Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Victoria Distributors, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. Continental Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979
  3. Lanvin Parfums, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  4. John H. Faunce Phila., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  5. Victoria Distributors, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966

1 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