Legal Opinion

Border Brokerage Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided March 11, 1963No. 67500; protests 295404-K, 301734-K, and 305867-K (Seattle)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These protests relate to certain merchandise generally identified on the invoices as plastic fertilizer-sample units, which were classified by similitude in use to manufactures of glass, not specially provided for, under paragraph 230(d) of the Tariff Act 'of 1930, as modified, and paragraph 1559(a), as amended, and assessed with duty at the rate of 25 per centum ad valorem. Plaintiff claims that .the merchandise is properly classifiable under the provision *234for nonenumerated manufactured articles in paragraph. 1658 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, with a dutiable…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. Lilly & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  2. United States v. Stouffer Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  3. In re San Gabriel Sanatorium Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1899
  4. Salentine & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  5. Oviatt Importing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1942

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Riekes Crisa Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API