Anderson v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Anderson v. United States

22 Cust. Ct. 343, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1730

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJune 15, 1949

DocketNo. 53268; protests 27752-K, etc. (Seattle)

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Cust. Ct. 343 (Anderson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. United States, 22 Cust. Ct. 343, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1730 (cusc 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is same in all material respects as that passed upon in Oy Wo Tong v. United States (5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372). In accordance therewith, bak hop and lotus nuts (hoi pak lin) were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as crude drugs and yuk ehuk pein was held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs, advanced.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is same in all material respects as that passed upon in Oy Wo Tong v. United States (5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372). In accordance therewith, bak hop and lotus nuts (hoi pak lin) were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as crude drugs and yuk ehuk pein was held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs, advanced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Cust. Ct. 343, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-united-states-cusc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack