Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
1Opinion of the Court
BOE, Judge:
In the above-entitled action the plaintiff contests the imposition of a duty upon the subject merchandise, a cargo of fluorspar, entered at Lackawanna, New York. Plaintiff claims a reimbursement of the duty paid on the ground that the cargo was shipped from Brownsville, Texas to Lacka wanna, New York (via Contrecour, Canada) and hence did not constitute an “import” subject to duty.
The facts herein are undisputed. In Brownsville, Texas, plaintiff purchased the subject merchandise, which had been imported from Tampico, Mexico, duty paid. Plaintiff arranged transportation of the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. Georgia-Pacific CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
- Air-Sea Brokers, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- Marine Carriers Corp. v. FowlerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
- Hanover Bank and Samuel B. Fortenbaugh, Jr., Executors of Estate of William F. Wall, Deceased v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Old Republic Insurance v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1986
- Humane Society of the United States v. ClintonUnited States Court of International Trade · 1999
- Spearhead Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1983