Legal Opinion

Kurt Orban Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 19, 1958No. C. D. 2041PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

LawebNCE, Judge:

This protest relates to that part of the importation covered by entry 903031, described in consular invoice 9201 as “One Lindemann Metal Scrap Baler Code ‘Sevol’ complete incases No. 1/7 and 19 parts unpacked,” which was classified by the collector of customs as “Machine tool parts,” and duty was imposed thereon at the rate of 15 per centum ad valorem as provided in paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 372), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802.

Plaintiff claims that said merchandise should be…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
  2. Benecke v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Schmidt, Pritchard & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API