United Merchandising Corp. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Foed, Judge:
The merchandise covered by the above protest consists of 600 dry cell 45-volt batteries, which were classified by the collector of customs under the provisions of paragraph 353 of the *51Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by tlie Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T.D. 52739, which provides as follows :
Articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as electric motors, fans, locomotives, portable tools, furnaces, heaters, ovens, ranges, washing machines, refrigerators, and signs, finished or unfinished,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Donalds Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
- Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. Kalter Mercantile Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1923
- United States v. American Steel & Copper Plate Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Columbia Shipbuilding Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Torch Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- Silvine Importers, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- Craig Panorama, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
- Transamerican Electronics Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
- Castelazo v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.