Border Brokerage Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
DoNLON, Judge:
These cases were consolidated in Seattle for purposes of trial. The merchandise, which is described on the invoices as balsam tree seed, uncleaned spruce tree seed, uncleaned cedar tree seed, and uncleaned hemlock tree seed, was identified by plaintiff’s witness, Mr. F. E. Manning. (E.. 8.)
This merchandise was imported from Canada in 1959 and 1960, and was assessed with duty at the rate of 2 cents per pound, under paragraph 764 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, as “Other garden and field seeds: Tree and shrub.” The claim in the protests is as follows:
Tree seed, should be…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. Ranlett & StoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1943
- Consolidated Elevator Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
- United States v. AmendolaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
- United States v. Washburn-Crosby Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- S. B. Penick & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967