Austin Motor Co. v. States

U.S. Customs Court

Austin Motor Co. v. States

38 Cust. Ct. 474

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedApril 17, 1957

DocketNo. 60659; protests 221062-K, 257009-K, and 257010-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 38 Cust. Ct. 474 (Austin Motor Co. v. 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

Austin Motor Co. v. States, 38 Cust. Ct. 474 (cusc 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items marked “A” consist of speedometers or parts thereof in chief value of metal similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of Industrial Operations, Inc. v. United States (30 Cust. Ct. 82, C. D. 1500), except that the speedometers and parts thereof in the cited case were designed and intended for use as parts of motorcycles whereas those at bar are intended for use as parts of automobiles. It was further stipulated that the items marked “B” consist of ammeters, not in chief value of glass, designed and fitted for use on Austin motorcars, the same in all material respects as those involved in Lucas Electrical Services, Inc., and Frank J. Eberle Co. v. United States (36 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 1776). Accepting the stipulation as a statement of facts and following the cited authorities, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

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

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items marked “A” consist of speedometers or parts thereof in chief value of metal similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of Industrial Operations, Inc. v. United States (30 Cust. Ct. 82, C. D. 1500), except that the speedometers and parts thereof in the cited case were designed and intended for use as parts of motorcycles whereas those at bar are intended for use as parts of automobiles. It was further stipulated that the items marked “B” consist of ammeters, not in chief value of glass, designed and fitted for use on Austin motorcars, the same in all material respects as those involved in Lucas Electrical Services, Inc., and Frank J. Eberle Co. v. United States (36 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 1776). Accepting the stipulation as a statement of facts and following the cited authorities, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Cust. Ct. 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-motor-co-v-states-cusc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack