Baron Tube Co. v. United States

48 Cust. Ct. 473
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJune 5, 1962
DocketNo. 66829; protests 261953-K, etc. (Galveston)
StatusPublished

This text of 48 Cust. Ct. 473 (Baron Tube Co. 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
Baron Tube Co. v. United States, 48 Cust. Ct. 473 (cusc 1962).

Opinion

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of seamless steel oil-well casings, not advanced beyond hammering, rolling, or casting, similar in all material respects to those the subject of United Supply & Mfg. Co., The Crispin Company v. United States (37 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 1804), the claim at one-tenth of 1 cent per pound was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of seamless steel oil-well casings, advanced beyond hammering, rolling, or casting, the same as those involved in Humble Oil & Refining Co. et al. v. United States (32 Cust. Ct. 32, C.D. 1577), were held dutiable at 7% percent ad valorem, as claimed.

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

Related

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United States
32 Cust. Ct. 32 (U.S. Customs Court, 1954)
United Supply & Mfg. Co. v. United States
37 Cust. Ct. 95 (U.S. Customs Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 Cust. Ct. 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baron-tube-co-v-united-states-cusc-1962.