Legal Opinion

Fulghum v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided December 12, 1938PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Tilson, Judge:

This suit complains that the collector “did not reliquidate in accordance with the decision on protest number 9312 wherein all the merchandise was held dutiable at 60 per centum ad valorem instead of 90 per centum ad valorem.” The collector’s number 9312, referred to above, was this court’s number 402949-G.

This case was originally submitted for decision upon the following stipulation, entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties:

That the merchandise covered by the above-entitled protest and marked with an (x) in red ink on the invoice, consists of hats composed…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ex Parte Tobias WatkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
  2. Skillern's Executors v. May's ExecutorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1810

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. D & M Watch Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1992
  2. Aris Gloves, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1948
  3. Nozaki Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  4. Lekas & Drivas, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  5. R. W. Smith & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1976

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