Legal Opinion

Border Brokerage Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 26, 1958No. C. D. 2046PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rao, Judge;

Certain imported bunk springs were classified by the collector of customs at the port of entry as manufactured metal articles, within the province of paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, and, accordingly, were assessed with duty at the rate of 22% per centum ad valorem.

In a protest duly filed against such action, plaintiff claimed that said springs are properly dutiable either at the rate of 12){ per centum ad valorem, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 369 of said act, as so…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
  2. Asiatic Petroleum Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1947
  3. H. T. Kennedy Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  4. Linread Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  5. F. W. Myers & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Victoria Distributors, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. United Merchandising Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  3. Coppersmith v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  4. Trans Atlantic Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  5. F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966

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