B. A. McKenzie & Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

B. A. McKenzie & Co. v. United States

48 Cust. Ct. 483

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in B. A. McKenzie & Co. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 44 Cust. Ct. 491 →

United States Customs Court·Decided June 14, 1962·No. No. 66858; protest 58/390 (A) (Seattle)·Published

Opinion

[484]*484Opinion by

Ford, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that the merchandise, described on the invoice as “2000 pcs. #8%" x 16.5 yards Friction Tape (Crown),” and “5000 pcs. No. 8%” x 16.5 yds. Friction Tape, B & M Brand,” consists of a material approximately three-fourths of an inch in width, is in chief value of polyvinyl chloride, and is similar in use to cotton friction tape. It was further stipulated that the items, described on the invoice as “500 gross needle books (Filter Queen) Brand” are similar in all material respects to the cardboard needle holders involved in Abstract 63099. On the record presented, the claims of the plaintiff were sustained.

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

[484]*484Opinion by

Ford, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that the merchandise, described on the invoice as “2000 pcs. #8%" x 16.5 yards Friction Tape (Crown),” and “5000 pcs. No. 8%” x 16.5 yds. Friction Tape, B & M Brand,” consists of a material approximately three-fourths of an inch in width, is in chief value of polyvinyl chloride, and is similar in use to cotton friction tape. It was further stipulated that the items, described on the invoice as “500 gross needle books (Filter Queen) Brand” are similar in all material respects to the cardboard needle holders involved in Abstract 63099. On the record presented, the claims of the plaintiff were sustained.

B. A. McKenzie & Co. v. United States, 48 Cust. Ct. 483 (cusc 1962).

Pincite

48 Cust. Ct. 483 (B. A. McKenzie & Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.