Legal Opinion

International Harvester Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided July 2, 1952No. C. D. 1437PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Laweence, Judge:

A mechanical device utilized for processing-sisal was classified by the collector of customs as a machine, not specially provided for, and duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 15 per centum ad valorem pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 372), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, effective January 1, 1948.

Plaintiff contends that the importation should have been classified as “textile machinery,” not specially provided for, “for manufacturing or processing…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Whitlock Cordage Co. v. Untied StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Pressner v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API