Legal Opinion

Hy-Glow Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 5, 1967No. C.D. 3023PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OliveR, Judge:

The protests in this case,, consolidated at trial, cover merchandise generally referred to on the invoices as “Christmas Light Bulbs” and classified by the collector within paragraph 229 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 53865 and T.D. 53877, at the rate of 10 per centum ad valorem, as “Incandescent electric-light bulbs and lamps: with metal filaments: Miniature Christmas tree lamps.”

Plaintiffs contend that the merchandise is dutiable under the same paragraph at a rate of only 9 or 8 per centum ad valorem, depending upon the specific entry date, by virtue of a 1962…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rice Millers' Ass'n v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. United States v. Briggs Manufacturing Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. Daniel Green Shoe Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. S.G.B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979
  2. Florsheim Shoe Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
  3. Esco Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1975
  4. Ehrenreich Photo-Optical Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API