Legal Opinion · Dissent

Liebert v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 12, 1969No. C.D. 3919Published

1Dissent

*365DISSENTING OPINION

Foed, Judge:

I am unable to agree with the decision reached by my colleagues. While there have been many instances where an article was held to be an accessory rather than a part under previous acts, such designation was dictum, there being no statutory provision for accessories. Just what an accessory is for tariff purposes therefore has never been determined and hence we have no guidelines to distinguish an accessory from a part. The recent decision of this court in T. D. Downing Company v. United States, 63 Cust. Ct. 57, C.D. 3873 (1969), considered the. same statutory…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. T. D. Downing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API