Legal Opinion

Reichard Coulston, Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 14, 1944No. C. D. 856PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Keefe, Judge:

The merchandise in this case is invoiced as “powdered red oxide of iron (synthetic) (calcined bauxite residue)” and entered under paragraph 73, act of 1930, as iron oxide and iron-hydroxide pigments, not specially provided for, at 20 per centum ad valorem. The collector assessed duty thereon at 30 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 214 as earthy or mineral substances. The plaintiff claims that the merchandise is in fact a bauxite residue which was manipulated after it became a residue, and that it is free of duty under paragraph 1664, or, if dutiable, it is dutiable at 10 per…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Nix v. HeddenSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Robertson v. SalomonSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  3. United States v. Wells, Fargo & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  4. Lutz v. MagoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  5. American Smelting & Refining Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Protest 93778-K of Reichard Coulston, Inc.United States Customs Court · 1946
  2. Reichard Coulston, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API