Legal Opinion

S. S. Kresge Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided January 24, 1952No. 56297; protest 164259-K (New York)PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rao, Judge:

This is an action for the recovery of excess duties alleged to have been erroneously assessed by the collector at the port of New York against *374an importation of sea grass mats. The articles in question were classified as “alf other floor coverings not specially provided for” and assessed with duty at the-rate of 20 per centum ad valorem in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1021 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802. In the protest filed by the importer, it is claimed that the merchandise so…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pacific Guano & Fertilizer Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  2. United States v. Lilly & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. Meyer v. CadwaladerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1898
  4. Katz v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1940

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Amorient Petroleum Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1985
  2. Diamond Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  3. Castelazo & Associates v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API