Legal Opinion
The United States v. Cajo Trading, Inc.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided February 15, 1968No. Customs Appeal 5263PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WORLEY, Chief Judge.
„ The Government alleges reversible error in the judgment of the Customs Court, First Division,1 which held that liquidation of certain spring clothespins assessed at a duty of 20 cents per gross under paragraph 412 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as presCribed by Presidential prociamation No. 3211, 72 Stat., part 2, ch- 14> T D 54493( was defective; that ^e protest respecting the entry was premature. and that it wag the duty of the colIector to make a vaIid iiquidation of the entry in accordance with law.
On December 7, 1957, Presidential proclamation No. 3211 suspended…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Norton v. Shelby CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Pan American Standard Brands, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
3Cited by5 opinions
- Omni U.S.A., Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- United States v. A. N. Deringer, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- Commonwealth Oil Refining Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
- The United States v. Cajo Trading, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- Transmarine Navigation Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1984