Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Asiatic Petroleum Corp. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided January 28, 1970No. C.D. 3958Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION

Bao, C. J.

I am in accord that under the circumstances of this case, the 30-day notice provided for in section 315 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, was not required.

Lubricating oil similar to that involved herein was assessed with duty by collectors at 10 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1558 of said tariff act, as modified, as unenumerated manufactured products, prior to the decision rendered by this court in Asiatic Petroleum Corp. et al. v. United States, 43 Cust. Ct. 252, C.D. 2137, 183 F. Supp. 275 (1959), appeal dismissed 47 CCPA 173 (1960). In that case…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Borneo Sumatra Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. Asiatic Petroleum Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  3. Westergaard, Berg-Johnsen Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1946
  4. Berkery, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  5. Sims-Worms, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API