Legal Opinion

Katz v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 14, 1940No. C. D. 354PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Kincheloe, Judge:

The merchandise covered by these protests consists of certain rugs and mats which were assessed for duty under paragraph 1021 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as floor coverings not specially provided for at the rate of 40 per centum ad valorem. The protests claim the merchandise dutiable at 35 per centum ad valorem under either paragraph 921 of said act as “all other floor coverings, including carpets, carpeting, mats, and rugs, wholly or in chief value of cotton,” or under paragraph 1021 as “carpets, carpeting, mats, matting, and rugs, wholly or in chief value of flax, hemp, or…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Magone v. HellerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. United States v. BokerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  3. United States v. A. W. Faber, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  4. Meyer v. CadwaladerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1898

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Diamond Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  2. F. W. Myers & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
  3. Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1952
  4. S. S. Kresge Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API