Legal Opinion

Roovers Bros. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 1, 1949No. C. D. 1190PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cole, Judge:

Merchandise described on the invoice as “ ‘Gloy’ C Paste” was classified, by similitude, as a chemical compound, not specially provided for, with an assessment of duty at 25 per centum ad valorem under paragraphs 5 and 1559 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. §1001, par. 5 and par. 1559). Plaintiff’s principal claims are for classification either directly, paragraph 84 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19U.S.C. §1001, par. 84), or by similitude, paragraph 1559, supra, as soluble or chemically treated starch, dutiable at 2 cents per pound; *54or as a nonenumerated manufactured article…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pickhardt v. MerrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. United States v. BokerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  3. Murphy v. ArnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  4. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  5. Ringk v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Shackman v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  2. Holeproof Hosiery Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
  3. S. S. Kresge Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  4. British Overseas Airways Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  5. Wenchow Importing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950

9 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