Legal Opinion

Commercial Adolfo S. Pagan, Inc. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided May 3, 1962No. C.D. 2337PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Judge:

The merchandise involved in these cases is described on the invoices as china or vitreous china water closet tanks. They are used in connection with flush toilets. The articles were assessed with duty at 31% per centum or 30 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 212 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 54108, as porcelain sanitary ware. They are claimed to be dutiable at 11% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 372 of said tariff act, as so modified, as other machines, not…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Schweitzer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. Durst Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
  3. Drakenfeld & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
  4. Gallagher & Ascher Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  5. Bing & Co.'s Successors v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Wilson's Customs Clearance, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
  2. Foster Wheeler Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  3. Plastic Service Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  4. Pico Novelty Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
  5. Rausch v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968

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

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

Powered by the Exa API