Legal Opinion · Dissent

F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided February 15, 1966No. C.D. 2617Published

1Dissent

*113DISSENTING OPINION

Ford, Judge:

Tbe majority opinion in bolding tbe imported curling irons and bair-straigbtening combs to fall witbin tbe purview of paragraph 339 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by tbe Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to tbe General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, of necessity found said articles to be chiefly used in tbe household, which is a prerequisite for classification of merchandise under said paragraph 339, sufra. However, in finding such chief use, the majority based its decision upon the chief use on or about the date…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Curtis v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
  2. Auffmordt v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916

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

Powered by the Exa API