Legal Opinion

Gehrig v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 26, 1968No. C.D. 3628PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rao, Chief Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case consists of “Hydrodist” master and remote electronic distance measuring instruments, Model MRB2. They were imported from South Africa and entered at the port of New York on February 14, 1962. Duty was assessed at 35 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 360 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the trade agreement with Switzerland, 90 Treas. Dec. 174, T.D. 53832, as surveying instruments and parts thereof, in chief value of metal. Various claims are made in the protest but those presently relied on are that the articles are dutiable…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Marconi Instruments, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  2. Smith v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gallagher & Ascher Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  2. Killian v. HillCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1990
  3. Heli-Support, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2002
  4. Lenkurt Electric Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API