Legal Opinion

Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided December 15, 1964No. C.D. 2498PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wilson, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this protest is described on the invoice as “Vulkollan Polyester Isocyanate Strips.” The imported material was classified under paragraph 28(a) 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 coal-tar synthetic resin or resin-like product, and assessed with duty at the rate of 22y2 per centum ad valorem, plus 31/2 cents per pound. The importer claims the material properly classifiable by reason of the similitude clause in paragraph 1559(a), as amended under paragraph…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. Geo. S. Bush & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Colonial Process Supply Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. Colonial Process Supply Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  3. Colonial Process Supply Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  4. Colonial Process Supply Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  5. Dayco Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966

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