Legal Opinion

Close v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided April 27, 1967No. C.D. 2985PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rao, Chief Judge:

These consolidated protests concern the proper classification of small, bar shaped pieces of indium antimonide, imported from Canada. On the invoices covered by the protests, the importations are listed as “1 piece Grade 85S indium antimonide,” “1 piece doped N, SXL indium antimonide,” “1 piece doped P, SXL indium antimonide,” “1 piece Grade 24 indium antimonide.” The collector classified the merchandise as articles, not specially provided for, composed wholly or in chief value of other metal under paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Rosemary Fortin v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of Labor, United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1979
  2. J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  3. Gallagher & Ascher Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  4. New York Merchandise Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  5. Dow Chemical Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970

4 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