Legal Opinion

Soderhamn Machine Mfg. Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided March 30, 1965No. 69205; protest 61/12394 (Tampa)PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ford, Judge:

The merchandise at issue was invoiced as “3 only Cambio 66 Débárkers according to American 190.496 standard.” The involved merchandise was classified by the collector as parts, not specially provided for, of articles *370having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, and assessed at 13% per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T.D. 52739.

Plaintiff contends that said merchandise is properly dutiable at 11% per centum ad…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Frank P. Dow Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Castelazo v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  2. Soderhamn Machine Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  3. Soderhamn Machine Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  4. Soderhamn Machine Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  5. Soderhamn Machine Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968

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