Legal Opinion

Durst Mfg. Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided October 23, 1957No. C. D. 1928Published

1Opinion of the Court

Laweence, Judge:

Presently before the court is an importation of merchandise, described on the consular invoice as plumbing parts, consisting of 1,000 sets of sprinkler tops and 1,000 bases which, when assembled, are used as lawn sprinklers.

The collector of customs classified the importation as articles of metal, not specially provided for, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 397), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, and assessed duty thereon at the rate of 22}( per centum ad…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Railroad Commission v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. United States v. Myers & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
  3. Akawo v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  4. United States v. BorgfeldtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  5. United States v. PalmCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API