E. M. Stevens Corp. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Oliver, Chief Judge:
This case involves a question of what is known in tariff parlance as “entireties.” The plaintiff imported an article having the trade name of “Groom-Aide,” which consists of a long handle, at one end of which is fastened a shoehorn and at the other end a clothesbrush. It was described on the invoices as “Combination Clothesbrush & Shoehorn” and was entered as dutiable at the rate of 17 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 339 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by T.D. 54108, for “household * * * utensils * * * not specially provided for * * * not…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. SchoverlingSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Donalds Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
- James Betesh Import Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
- Artgift Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
3Cited by5 opinions
- E. M. Stevens Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- Aladdin International Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1989
- American Scientific Products, Div. of American Hospital Supply Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1990
- CR Industries v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1986
- Mattel, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1984