Legal Opinion

A. W. Fenton Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided January 28, 1960No. C.D. 2147PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mollison, Judge:

The protests enumerated in the attached schedule of protests were consolidated for trial together. They have been limited to the merchandise described on the invoices as wainscotting, worked marble, marble slabs, polished slabs, rear wall, marble background, or polished marble slabs, with or without other words of description.

The merchandise so described was assessed with duty at the rate of 25 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 232 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 51802, reading as follows:

Marble, breccia, and onyx, wholly or partly…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Strauss v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  2. Lyons Transport v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  3. Ragsdale v. Southern Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1903

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  2. R. L. Swearer Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  3. C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  4. Descoware Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  5. New York Merchandise Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968

1 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