Legal Opinion

C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided April 17, 1957No. C. D. 1872PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Lawrence, Judge:

Merchandise, described in the invoices as ‘Abrasive Furnace Ferro Silicon,” was classified by the collector of *258customs as “ferrosilicon containing 8 per centum or more of silicon and less than 30 per centum” of the kind made dutiable in paragraph 302 (i) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 302 (i)), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, at the rate of 1 cent per pound on the silicon content.

By its protest, plaintiff claims that the merchandise is free of duty, pursuant to the terms of paragraph 1664 of said…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. Tower & SonsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
  2. Tower v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
  3. Tower v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
  4. C. J. Tower & Sons v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API