United States v. Electrolux Corp.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtRich, Judge
This appeal by the government is from a judgment of the United States Customs Court, C.D. 1955, sustaining the protest of Electrolux Corporation, appellee, that imported finished electrical floor polishers were properly dutiable under paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act,of, 1930, (as modified) as articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, rather than as household utensils under paragraph 339, as classified by the Collector.
The pertinent provisions are:
Paragraph 339, as modified by T.D. 52739: ', Table, household, kitchen and hospital utensils, and hollow or flat…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fink v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Drakenfeld & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
- Drakenfeld & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
- United States v. PealtzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. RichardsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
3Cited by12 opinions
- Faus Group, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2004
- Fred Roberts Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1998
- Link-Belt Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
- Armaghanian v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.