Bloomingdale Bros. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Bloomingdale Bros. v. United States

57 Cust. Ct. 817

United States Customs Court·Decided October 13, 1966·No. No. P66/267·Published

Opinion

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of electric coffee grinders, having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, without which the articles will not operate, and that the issues involved are analogous to those in Bruce Duncan Company, a/c Sims-Worms v. United States (45 Cust. Ct. 85, C.D. 2202) and United States v. Electrolux Corporation (46 CCPA 143, C.A.D. 718), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

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

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of electric coffee grinders, having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, without which the articles will not operate, and that the issues involved are analogous to those in Bruce Duncan Company, a/c Sims-Worms v. United States (45 Cust. Ct. 85, C.D. 2202) and United States v. Electrolux Corporation (46 CCPA 143, C.A.D. 718), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

Bloomingdale Bros. v. United States, 57 Cust. Ct. 817 (cusc 1966).

Pincite

57 Cust. Ct. 817 (Bloomingdale Bros. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related