Legal Opinion

Victoria Distributors, Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided March 28, 1966No. C.D. 2639PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Nichols, Judge:

The merchandise involved in these cases, consolidated at the trial, consists of hand operated air pumps and parts *285of the type commonly known as bicycle pumps. They were assessed with duty at 19 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 54108, as articles of metal, not specially provided for. It is claimed that they are properly dutiable as machines, not specially provided for, or parts thereof under paragraph 372 of said tariff act, as…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Oxford Int'l. Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  2. Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  3. United Merchandising Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  4. N. D. Cunningham & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  5. Verity Southall, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  2. Hancock Gross, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  3. William H. Masson, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
  4. Castelazo & Associates & Famous Jobbing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  5. Famous Jobbing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968

5 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