Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Marshall Field & Co. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided January 22, 1958No. 4919PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRich, Judge

This is an appeal by the importer from the judgment of the United States Customs Court, First Division (C. D. 1853), one judge dissenting, holding merchandise covered by Protest 230473-K, invoiced as “Iron Works, Metal fruits w/leaves” and classified as “artificial fruits,” and Protest 279842-K, invoiced as “Iron pictures of 4 season flowers rusty finish with dull black wooden frame” and classified as “artificial flowers” to be dutiable as classified by the collector at 45% ad valorem under paragraph 1518, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 51898.

Appellant contends that the instant…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  2. Cochran Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
  3. United States v. Ben Felsenthal & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  4. United States v. PealtzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  5. United States v. SearsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1998
  2. Bar Zel Expediters, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1982
  3. Ludvig Svensson (U.S.) Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1999
  4. Belcrest Linens v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1983
  5. CamelBak Products, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2010

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API