Legal Opinion

Sullivan v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 7, 1951No. C. D. 1331PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LAWRENCE, Judge:

The merchandise in controversy is invoiced as “Agricultural Implement Parts — Storm Hats — 2880—Por Farm Tractor Use.”

The collector of customs imposed duty upon the merchandise at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem as provided in paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 397) for articles or wares not specially provided for, in chief value of base metal.

Plaintiff relies upon its claim that the merchandise is entitled to freedom from duty pursuant to the provision in paragraph 1604 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1201, par. 1604) for “Agricultural…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. United States v. Kalter Mercantile Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1923
  3. United States v. American Steel & Copper Plate Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  4. Columbia Shipbuilding Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
  5. Welte v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Seawol Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  2. Engis Equipment Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API