Legal Opinion

S. H. Pomerance Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided December 2, 1948No. 7632; Entry No. 700248PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Lawrence, Judge:

A very interesting and novel problem is presented by this appeal for reappraisement. Tbe merchandise to wbicb it relates consists of 727 complete watches which were imported from Switzerland.

Watches are not specifically enumerated in the Tariff Act of 1930. Neither are they dutiable as entireties. Watch movements are subject to duty pursuant to the terms of paragraph 367 (a) of said act at specific rates depending upon certain measurements and other details not important here, while watchcases are subject to duty under subparagraph (f) of said paragraph 367 at both specific…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. James A. Hayes & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1906

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Nanco, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API