D. N. & E. Walter & Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Mollison, Judge:
The merchandise the subject of this protest is described on the invoice as “Shading material: Higo Blind, Inside Peel, Natural color, without pulleys & cord.” It was classified by the collector under the provision in paragraph 409 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for—
* * * all articles not specially provided for, wholly or partly manufactured of * * * bamboo * * *
*2and assessed with, duty at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem accordingly. The protest claim is for duty at the rate of 16% per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 412 of the same act, as modified by the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Loewenthal v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
- Junge v. HeddenSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Bough v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- United States v. Guthman, Solomons & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1907
- Lorsch v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mettler Instrument Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968