Faunce v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Johnson, Judge:
This is a protest against the collector’s assessment of duty on ceramic rods imported from West Germany on August 23, 1956, at 33 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 212 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 54108, as electrical porcelain ware. It is claimed in the protest that the merchandise is properly dutiable at 15 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 214 of said tariff act (as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 51802) or at 13 per centum ad…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fensterer & Ruhe v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
- Dingelstedt v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1898
- United States v. DowningSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. Sailors' Union of PacificU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1909
- United States v. Fensterer & RuheCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Arklay S. Richards Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
- Electro Motive Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
- Electro Motive Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
- Electro Motive Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
- Electro Motive Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.