Legal Opinion

Amitt Fabrics, Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided October 29, 1963No. C.D. 2416PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rao, Judge:

On September 15, 1960, there was enacted into law a congressional definition and interpretation of the provision in paragraph 907 of the Tariff Act of 1930, for “waterproof cloth, wholly or in chief value of cotton or other vegetable fiber, whether or not in part of India rubber.” This amending statute, section 2, Public Law 86-795, provides as follows:

In order to insure a correct interpretation of the provision “waterproof cloth” in paragraph 907, Tariff Act of 1930, it is hereby declared that it was and is the true intent and meaning of paragraph 907 to limit the term…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. United States v. American Trucking AssociationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  4. Sproles v. BinfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  5. Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961

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

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. N. Erlanger Blumgart & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  2. Kaplan Products & Textiles, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
  3. Amity Fabrics, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  4. Rohner, Gehrig & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  5. Sims-Worms, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968

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

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

Powered by the Exa API