Legal Opinion
Silvine Importers, Inc. v. United States
United States Customs Court
Decided November 14, 1966No. C.D. 2821PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Rao, Chief Judge:
The merchandise covered by the instant protest consists of electric brewmasters, some of which were imported with electric cords and plugs, others without.
*363These brewmasters are earthenware or porcelain, pots with covers and contain electrical heating elements. They are used for the purpose of heating water and other liquids.
The brewmasters without cords, covered by entry 13514, were classified as household articles wholly or in chief value of other base metal and assessed with duty at 17 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 339 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Davies v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Altman & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- Donalds Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
- United States v. Kalter Mercantile Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1923
- Columbia Shipbuilding Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Hancock Gross Mfg., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
- Davar Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
- Transamerican Electronics Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
- Southwestern Electric Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
- Silvine Importers, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.