Legal Opinion

Mader v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 14, 1969No. C.D. 3921PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Re, Judge:

The merchandise in these seven protests, consolidated for trial is described on the invoices as extra spools or spare line spools. The spools are made to be attached and used with the fishing reel number 280, also known as the Finessa reel. These “extra” or “spare” spools were classified under paragraph 1535 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 54108, as “Parts of fishing reels”, and were assessed duty at the rate of 34 percent ad valorem. Although there is no question that the spools are properly classifiable under paragraph 1535, plaintiffs maintain, however, that they…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Norma Co. of America v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  2. Lee v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  4. Charles Garcia & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
  5. Charles Garcia & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. John K. Kealy Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  2. Winter v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API