Legal Opinion

Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided July 28, 1952No. C. D. 1456PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mollison, Judge:

The merchandise the subject of this protest is described on the invoice as “Rubber Advertising Mats” and was assessed with duty at the rate of 25 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1537 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 for — ■

Manufactures of india rubber * * * not specially provided for.

The protest claim is for duty at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 1021 of the same act, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, for—

*123All other floor coverings not specially provided for [except felt-base floor…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Gooch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  3. Willis v. MabonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
  4. Texas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  5. United States Cement Co. v. CooperIndiana Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. American Customs Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. Damrak Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  3. Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API