Legal Opinion

Ayers v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided February 14, 1962No. 66459; protest 60/19761 (St. Albans)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise in question is a so-called hydrotherm, which was classified as laboratory glassware under paragraph 218(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, with a duty assessment at the rate of 42% per centum ad valorem. Plaintiff claims that the merchandise is free of duty as an agricultural implement under paragraph 1604 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which reads as follows:

*337Pab. 1604. Agricultural implements: Plows, tooth or disk harrows, headers, harvesters, reapers, agricultural drills and planters, mowers, horserakes, cultivators, thrashing machine, cotton gins,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. BokerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  2. Klipstein v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
  3. United States v. American Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  4. O. G. Hempstead & Son v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Porsche Motorsports N. Am., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API