Legal Opinion

Quon Quon Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 17, 1958No. C. D. 2038PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mollison, Judge:

The merchandise the subject of this protest is described on the invoice as “Rattancore kleenex b<j>x cover” and *179was assessed with duty at the rate of 50 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 411 of the Tariff Act of 1930 which reads, so far as pertinent, as follows:

Pab. 411. * * * baskets * * * any of the foregoing wholly or in chief value of * * * wood * * * not specially provided for * * *.

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 in the Presidential proclamations…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. Basket Importing Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  2. United States v. Byrnes & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Royal Cathay Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. Quon Quon Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  3. International Artware Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  4. America Asia Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  5. America-Asia Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963

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

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

Powered by the Exa API