Legal Opinion

Baron Tube Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 5, 1962No. 66829; protests 261953-K, etc. (Galveston)Published

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of seamless steel oil-well casings, not advanced beyond hammering, rolling, or casting, similar in all material respects to those the subject of United Supply & Mfg. Co., The Crispin Company v. United States (37 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 1804), the claim at one-tenth of 1 cent per pound was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of seamless steel oil-well casings, advanced beyond hammering, rolling, or casting, the same as those involved in Humble Oil & Refining Co. et al. v. United…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  2. United Supply & Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API