Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Floral Arts Studios v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided September 19, 1962No. C.D. 2359PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Kao, Judge:

The 27 protests here involved, which have been consolidated for purposes of trial, contest the collector’s classification of certain imported merchandise as paper, not specially provided for, within the purview of paragraph 1409 of the Tariff Act of 1930, or as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 90 Treas. Dec. 234, T.D. 53865, supplemented by Presidential notification, 90 Treas. Dec. 280, T.D. 53877, and his assessment of duty thereon at the rate, respectively, of 30 per centum ad valorem or 20 per centum ad valorem.

It is the contention…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Cadwalader v. ZehSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Robertson v. SalomonSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  3. Chew Hing Lung v. WiseSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  4. Meyer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  5. Swan v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1881

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. C. S. Emery & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  2. Richard Nelson Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
  3. Cal. Floral Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  4. Cal. Floral Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  5. Calif. Floral Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API