Legal Opinion

Joseph Rotberg & Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided January 3, 1958No. C. D. 1952PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wilson, Judge:

The merchandise covered by these protests consists of certain lddsldns and lambskins imported from Argentina in 1943. These importations were classified under paragraph 1519 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 50504, as “dressed” fur sldns. The lddsldns were assessed with duty at the rate of 12% per centum ad valorem and the lambskins at 15 per centum ad valorem. Plaintiffs claim the merchandise is properly free of duty under the provisions of paragraph 1681 of the tariff act as “Furs and fur skins, not specially provided for, undressed.”

Counsel for the importer…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kung Chen Fur Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1952
  2. A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  3. Prime Fur Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
  4. Kung Chen Fur Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Allied French Furs, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  2. American Lamb Skin Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  3. Aronin v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  4. Denker v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  5. Ira Furman Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958

4 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