Legal Opinion

F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 22, 1964No. 68674; protest 62/9923 (Philadelphia)PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rao, Judge:

Certain battery-operated mixmasters, assessed with duty at the rate of 17 per centum ad valorem, as household articles, wholly or in chief value of base metal, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 339 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, are claimed to be dutiable at only 13% per centum ad valorem as articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, within the provisions of paragraph 353 of said act, as modified by the Torquay…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bruce Duncan Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
  2. Rotel Corp. of America v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  3. Seprol, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Prestigeline v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1975
  2. Bloomfield Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  3. Aimcee Wholesale Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  4. Broadway Hale Stores, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  5. Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966

12 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