Legal Opinion

Harry Wilson Sales Agency v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided March 15, 1966No. C.D.2627PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OlivbR, Judge:

The protests listed above were consolidated at trial (N. 2) and cover the importations of two types of bicycle cyclometers, invoiced as Nos. M-26 and M-27, respectively. The merchandise was assessed for duty at the compound rate ¡of 27% cents each, plus 32% per centum ad valorem, under the provision in paragraph 368 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 53832, for other mechanisms, devices, or instruments intended or suitable for measuring distance.

In its brief, plaintiff abandons all alternative claims originally put forth and relies solely on its claim for…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. Bacharach Industrial Instrument Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  2. United States v. Hengerer Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. A. Lietz Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  2. Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API