Bamberger v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Bamberger v. United States

46 Cust. Ct. 463

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 4, 1961

DocketNo. 65582; protests 156151-K, 178133-K, and 178134-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 46 Cust. Ct. 463 (Bamberger 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

Bamberger v. United States, 46 Cust. Ct. 463 (cusc 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

[464]*464Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of candlesticks and candelabras similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim at 22% percent under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), for other metal articles, not specially provided for, was sustained. The items marked “C,” stipulated to be the same as those involved in said Abstract 62036, were held dutiable at 25 percent under the provision in said paragraph 397, as modified, supra, for articles, not specially provided for, plated with silver on nickel silver or copper, but not in chief value of silver, as claimed.

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

[464]*464Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of candlesticks and candelabras similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim at 22% percent under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), for other metal articles, not specially provided for, was sustained. The items marked “C,” stipulated to be the same as those involved in said Abstract 62036, were held dutiable at 25 percent under the provision in said paragraph 397, as modified, supra, for articles, not specially provided for, plated with silver on nickel silver or copper, but not in chief value of silver, as claimed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Cust. Ct. 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bamberger-v-united-states-cusc-1961.