Legal Opinion

Artmark Chicago, Ltd. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 7, 1976No. C.D. 4654; Court No. 73-3-00816PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Foed, Judge:

The question presented in this case pertains to the proper classification, for customs duty purposes, of plastic horse figures approximately 10 inches high, composed in chief value of plastic, having removable plastic saddles and metal reins. The merchandise was classified as toy figures of animate objects under provision of item 737.40, Tariff Schedules of the United States, as modified by T.D. 68-9, and assessed with duty at the rate of 21 or 17.5 per centum ad valorem depending upon the date of entry.

Plaintiff contends the horses are not toy figures but are in fact used for…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Davis Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  2. S. Y. Rhee Importers v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
  3. Novelty Import Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  4. A. W. Fenton Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
  5. A. W. Fenton Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Artmark Chicago Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API