Legal Opinion

Brauner v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided April 19, 1960No. Reap. Dec. 9673; Entry No. 898363PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Lawrence, Judge:

This appeal for a reappraisement was filed pursuant to the provisions of section 501 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1501).

The merchandise under consideration consists of parts of a so-called Lurgi acid distillation plant which was imported by E. F. Drew & Co., Inc., of New York, in a knockeddown condition. Brauner & Co. acted as customhouse broker.

The importation was invoiced at a total of $46,900. Entry was made at $46,900, plus 2% per centum export reimbursement, amounting to $1,172.50, to which was added $1,236 to cover a price rise in the cost of labor…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. Rohner Gehrig & Co.United States Customs Court · 1940
  2. Pacific Customs Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
  3. United States v. Rohner Gehrig & Co.United States Customs Court · 1942

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. F. P. Dow, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
  2. United States v. Erb & Gray Scientific, Inc.United States Customs Court · 1965
  3. Erb & Gray Scientific, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  4. United States v. F. P. Dow, Inc.United States Customs Court · 1965
  5. Erb & Gray Scientific, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966

2 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