Legal Opinion

Holmes v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided October 18, 1956No. 60296; protest 220377-K (Seattle)Published

1Opinion of the Court

Donlon, Judge:

On trial, the description of the merchandise, subject of this protest, was stipulated as follows:

* * * oats, recleaned, rolled, unhulled, and unfit for human consumption. (R. 2.)

This merchandise, described in the invoice as “recleaned #2 C. W. Oats, not further manufactured than Rolled, unfit for human consumption, for livestock feeding,” was classified by the collector under paragraph 1558 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 52739, as a nonenumerated manufactured article, duti*399able at 10 per centum…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Forrest v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
  2. Forrest v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API