Legal Opinion

Studner v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided July 8, 1969No. C.D. 3865PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Nao, Chief Judge:

The merchandise involved herein is described on the invoices and entries as “old printing blocks” or as “wooden printing blocks”. It was assessed with duty at 40 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 395 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T.D. 51802, as print blocks or print rollers, not specially provided for, of whatever material composed, used for printing, stamping, or cutting designs.

Two claims are made in the protests, as amended: That the merchandise is properly dutiable at 4 per centum ad valorem…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Patton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Harley Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. Koons v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
  4. Midwest Waste Material Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
  5. Studner v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cheltenham Supply Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  2. The United States v. David StudnerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
  3. W. N. Proctor Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  4. The United States v. David StudnerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API