Legal Opinion

Camarge Trading Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided May 28, 1958No. C. D. 2000PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Lawrence, Judge:

A commodity described in the consular invoice as “Chrome plated Fitall Basket Insert” was classified by the collector of customs as an article in chief value of metal in paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 397), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, and duty was imposed thereon at the rate of 22% per centum ad valorem.

Plaintiff relies upon the claim in its protest that the articles are household or kitchen utensils and should be classified, accordingly, in paragraph 339 of said act (19 U. S. C.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. John L. Westland & Son, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Davies, Turner & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  2. Davies, Tuner & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
  3. Davies v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API