Bloomingdale Bros. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Bloomingdale Bros. v. United States

57 Cust. Ct. 817

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedOctober 13, 1966

DocketNo. P66/267

StatusPublished

This text of 57 Cust. Ct. 817 (Bloomingdale Bros. 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Cust. Ct. 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloomingdale-bros-v-united-states-cusc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack