Legal Opinion

Hornung v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 19, 1953No. C. D. 1558PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Lawrence, Judge:

Presented for our determination in this case is the proper classification of an importation referred to in the entry as “pedometers * * * instruments to measure distance.” The collector of customs classified the merchandise within the provisions of paragraph 368 (a) (1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 368 (a) (1) and (2)) as distance-measuring devices, containing no jewels, valued at more than $1.10 but not more than $2.25 each, and assessed duty thereon at the combination rate of $1 each and 65 per centum ad valorem.

*127It is claimed by plaintiff in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Chew Hing Lung v. WiseSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. United States v. Lorsch & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
  3. Kahlen v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  4. American Sugar Refining Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  5. Mamluck v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Universal Foreign Service, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  2. Heyman Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  3. Thoresen, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
  4. American Time Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  5. Eric R. Bachmann Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965

3 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