Legal Opinion

Turner v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 25, 1952No. C. D. 1477PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Laweencb, Judge:

An importation from Denmark, described on tbe consular invoice as “1 complete NIRO laboratory Spray Drying Unit,” was classified by the collector of customs as “laboratory apparatus” within the provisions of paragraph 360 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. §1001, par 360), and duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 40 per centum ad valorem.

It is contended alternatively by plaintiffs that the apparatus should properly have been classified as a machine, not specially provided for, within the scope of paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 372),…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Brabender Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1942
  2. Cambosco Scientific Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1942
  3. Brabender Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Federal Electric Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  2. B. & K. Instruments, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979
  3. Davies, Turner & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
  4. Turner v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API