Legal Opinion

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

United States Customs Court

Decided February 15, 1966No. C.D. 2617PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Nichols, Judge:

These two protests were consolidated at the trial. Protest No. 62/4282 covers curling irons, imported from Japan on February 26,1961, and protest No. 62/12938 covers hair-straightening combs, imported from West Germany on November 21, 1961. Both were assessed with duty at 19 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 39/ of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 54108, as articles wholly or in chief value of metal, not specially provided for. It is claimed that they are dutiable at 17…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kroder Reubel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
  2. United States v. Ellis Silver Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  3. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  4. Protests 650136-G of Strauss Bros.United States Customs Court · 1940
  5. Roberto Colon Machinery Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Wilson's Customs Clearance, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  2. Davis Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  3. Royal Cathay Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  4. Chas. Kurz Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  5. Novelty Import Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968

19 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