Legal Opinion

Goldfarb v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided August 4, 1965No. C.D. 2560PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Donlon, Judge:

These six protests were consolidated on trial at Laredo, Tex. The protests claim that processed strawberries, product of Mexico, which as imported were packed in jars and cans, were not properly classified by the collector. He classified the importations as edible berries, prepared or preserved, not specially provided *121for, under modified paragraph 736, and charged duty on the merchandise at 14 per centum ad valorem. The protest claim is that the merchandise is specially provided for; that it is jam, within the eo nomine enumeration of paragraph 751; and that duty should be…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cresca Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  2. Bogle v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  3. Allied Food Corp. of Am. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Goldfarb v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  2. Charles Jacquin Et Cie, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API