Legal Opinion

Maher-App & Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided January 5, 1956No. C. D. 1748PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Johnson, Judge:

These are protests, consolidated at the trial, against the collector’s assessment of duty on artificial teeth, composed of a plastic material, at 50 cents per dozen, but not less than 45 per centum nor more than 70 per centum ad valorem, under paragraph 212 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, and the President’s proclamation of May 4, 1948, T. D. 51909. Said paragraph covers china, porcelain, and other vitrified wares, and this merchandise was classified thereunder, by virtue of the similitude clause of paragraph…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Strauss & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  2. Rolls Razor, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941
  3. United States v. NeumanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  4. Nevin v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
  5. Astoria Pan-Americana, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Friedman v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  2. Macartney v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API