Legal Opinion

Acrow, Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided December 30, 1953No. 57727; protest 168733-K (San Francisco)PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ford, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case was classified by the collector of customs as “Bldg. Shores, Mfgrs. of Metal, N. S. P. F.,” and duty was levied thereon at the rate of 22% percent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802. Plaintiffs claim said merchandise to be properly “dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 372 and T. D. 51802, relating to machines, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for, or at 10 percent under paragraph 312 and T. D.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
  2. Hopes Windows, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941
  3. Protest 942682-G of De PompeiUnited States Customs Court · 1939

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Laurence Myers Scaffolding Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. General Chain & Belt Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  3. S. G. B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
  4. Rex-Spanall, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  5. Brattner & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970

2 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