Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Oliver, Chief Judge:
The protest in this ease is limited to certain items described on the invoice as “Transformers, Continental-Leads, Continental,” which are contained in case No. 5, and as “Edison Screw Transformers,” which merchandise is contained in case No. 8.
The involved merchandise was classified and assessed for duty under the provision contained in paragraph 228 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 covering ophthal-moscopes and parts thereof, finished or unfinished, at the rate of 60 per centum ad valorem. Several claims are made by the plaintiff herein, but the one chiefly relied on by it…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. American Steel & Copper Plate Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Welte v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- United States v. WanamakerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
- Borgfeldt & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- F. T. Griswold Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
- J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958