Legal Opinion

Schick X-Ray Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided February 4, 1969No. C.D. 3689PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Newman, Judge:

This case presents for the court’s determination the proper tariff classification of merchandise described on the commercial -invoice -as “1 Elema cycle Ergometer No. 121 complete with accessories.” The collector of customs assessed duty on the merchandise at the rate of 25% per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 360 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, for laboratory apparatus.

*98Plaintiff, originally, interposed several alternative…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Westinghouse Electric International Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1952
  2. Gallagher & Ascher Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  3. J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
  4. Instrumentation Associates, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  5. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. A. W. Fenton Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
  2. A. W. Fenton Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
  3. Applied Research Laboratories, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  4. University of Oregon v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  5. B. & K. Instruments, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API