Christensen Diamond Products Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Richardson, Judge:
The merchandise of this protest is described on the invoice as “100 carats diamond dust.” It consists of synthetically produced diamond particles in the size range 80/100 mesh, which were exported from Ireland and entered for consumption at Denver, Colo. The merchandise was classified by the collector under 19 U.S.C.A., section 1001, paragraph 214 (paragraph 214, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified), as an “earthy or mineral substance wholly or partly manufactured * * *” and assessed with duty at the rate of 15 *222per centum ad valorem. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cochrane v. Badische Anilin & Soda FabrikSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Klipstein v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
- Hensel v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
- Larzelere & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- McGowan v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- Diamond Tool Research Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
- Sortex Co. of North America v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1978
- Engelhard Hanovia, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
- Diamond Tool Research Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.