Legal Opinion

Friedland v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 23, 1954No. C. D. 1626PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Johnson, Judge:

This controversy involves tbe classification of certain synthetic rough rubies, described on the invoice as “rubis rosé foncé” and “rubis grenat.” The collector classified the merchandise under the provisions of paragraph 214 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as “Earthy or mineral substances wholly or partly manufactured * * * not specially provided for * * * 30 per centum ad valorem * * The plaintiff relies chiefly upon the claim that the merchandise is free of duty under the provisions of paragraph 1668 as “precious stones, rough or uncut, * * * whether in their natural form or…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Larzelere & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Christensen Diamond Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  2. Engelhard Hanovia, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API