Besler v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 1061
United States Customs Court·Decided January 13, 1969·No. No. P69/10; protests 67/26820-4223, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/11; protests 67/51061, etc. (Mobile); No. P69/12; protests 67/79010, etc. (Baltimore); No. P69/13; protests 67/80811-5495,etc. (Chicago); No. P69/14; protests 68/31375-7835,etc. (Chicago); No. P69/15; protests 66/8164, etc. (Boston); No. P69/16; protests 67/62237, etc. (Boston); No. P69/17; protests 66/78386-2643, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/18; protests 66/77278-2841, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/19; protests 66/78623-3037, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/20; protests 67/26828-4232, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/21; protests 67/66707-5209, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/22; protests 68/7995-6486 and 68/8944-6563 (Chicago)·Published
Opinion
In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of artificial flowers, trees, foliage, fruits, vegetables, grasses, or grains, and articles made of the foregoing, in chief value of plastic, assembled in the same manner as the merchandise the subject of Armbee Corporation et al. v. United States (60 Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 3278) and Zunold Trading Corporation et al. v. United States (60 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 3279), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Besler v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 1061 (cusc 1969).
62 Cust. Ct. 1061 (Besler v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Armbee Corp. v. United States
60 Cust. Ct. 105 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
Zunold Trading Corp. v. United States
60 Cust. Ct. 112 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)