Legal Opinion

Bird Machine Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided October 4, 1962No. C.D. 2362PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LaweeNcb, Judge:

Plaintiff brought this action by protest pursuant to the terms of section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1514).

Certain machines known as Skardal stock preparators, and parts, were classified by the collector of customs as “Other stock treating parts for paper and pulp machinery,” pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 356 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 356), as modified by the trade agreement with Sweden, 68 Treas. Dec. 19, T.D. 47785, or the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  2. Bird Machine Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bird Machine Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  2. Bird Machine Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API