Legal Opinion

Anderson v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided December 19, 1961No. C.D. 2304PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mollison, Judge:

The 14 protests enumerated in the attached schedule are directed against the action of the collector of customs in assessing duty on merchandise which is described on the invoices, entries, and protests as “limestone spalls” at the rate of l1/^ cents per 100 pounds under the provision in paragraph 203, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 51802, for—

Limestone (not suitable for use as monumental or building stone), crude, or crushed but not pulverized.

Alternative claims are made in each of the protests for classification under other provisions of the tariff act as follows:

[Fr…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. American Trucking AssociationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. Crooks v. HarrelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  3. Lake County v. RollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  4. Lawder v. StoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  5. United States v. Washburn-Crosby Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Heraeus-Amersil, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant v. The United States, Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
  2. Heraeus-Amersil, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1984
  3. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
  4. Continental Ore Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
  5. Seibert v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API