Legal Opinion

Toyomenka, Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided August 8, 1963No. 67918; protests 59/16381(C) and 59/26688 (New York)PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ford, Judge:

The merchandise covered by the protests listed in schedule “A,” annexed hereto and made a part hereof, consolidated for the purpose of trial, consists of ladies’ cotton blouses, designated on the invoices as styles 9291, 9291A, and 9291B, which were classified by the collector of customs as wearing apparel in part of trimming under the provisions of paragraph 1529(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T.D. 52739, and assessed with duty at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem.

It is the position of plaintiff herein that said cotton blouses are not trimmed…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Starlight Trading, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Starlight Trading, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  2. Marubeni Iida (America), Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  3. Shalom Baby-Wear, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1972
  4. Shalom Baby-Wear, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  5. George S. Bailey Hat Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968

3 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