Schick X-Ray Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Rao, Chief Judge:
These protests place in issue the classification of certain imported merchandise described on the invoices as “Hydraulic patient table TIT-10 for radiographic examinations, No. 141 DS 576,” “Foamed plastic mattress for TIT-10 DS 578,” “Hydraulic patient chair-table TIT-10,” “Adjustable holders,” and “Mattress.” These articles were classified as hospital utensils in chief value of steel under paragraph 339 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, and…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Auto-Ordnance Corp. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Akron v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
- Liebert v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
- Auto-Ordnance Corp. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Liebert v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969