Legal Opinion

D. N. & E. Walter & Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided December 28, 1955No. C. D. 1744PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Loewenthal v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  2. Junge v. HeddenSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. Bough v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  4. United States v. Guthman, Solomons & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1907
  5. Lorsch v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Mettler Instrument Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API