Legal Opinion

Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 19, 1953No. 57622; protest 179658-K (New York)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. United States v. American Steel & Copper Plate Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. Welte v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
  4. United States v. WanamakerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  5. Borgfeldt & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. F. T. Griswold Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
  2. J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API