Legal Opinion
Seawol Corp. v. United States
United States Customs Court
Decided January 28, 1954No. 57818; protest 184086-K (Los Angeles)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Ford, Judge:
The merchandise the subject of this protest was classified by the collector as manufactures of metal, not specially provided for, and duty was levied thereon at the rate of 22% per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802. Plaintiffs claim said merchandise to be properly dutiable as parts of sewing machines, not specially provided for, and dutiable at only 10 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act .of 1930, as modified, supra.
At…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. Bosch Magneto Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- 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
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
- Engis Equipment Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
- British Auto Parts, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
- Naumes Forwarding Service v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957