Legal Opinion

N. D. Cunningham & Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided October 11, 1965No. C.D. 2579PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rao, Chief Judge:

The merchandise in question is described on the entries as “Refrigeration Evaporators — Feost Feee Gas Absorption Cooling Units” and on the invoices as “Frost-free gas absorption Cooling Unit 912A” and “Gas absorption Cooling Units XN11.” The articles were entered at the port of Mobile, Ala., by the plaintiff, a customs broker, for the account of the Norge Division of the Borg-Warner Corp. The collector classified the merchandise as articles or wares, composed of base metal, not specially provided for, within paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
  2. United States v. Bosch Magneto Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. Empire Findings Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
  4. Keer, Maurer Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  5. Camley International Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Borneo Sumatra Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. Victoria Distributors, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  3. United States v. Elbe Products Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
  4. Elbe Products Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API