Boroff-Norman Co. v. United States

36 Cust. Ct. 417
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMay 3, 1956
DocketNo. 59879; protests 205764-K (A) and 247776-K (A) (New York)
StatusPublished

This text of 36 Cust. Ct. 417 (Boroff-Norman 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
Boroff-Norman Co. v. United States, 36 Cust. Ct. 417 (cusc 1956).

Opinion

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the items in question are neither appropriate nor suitable for the purpose of ornamentation to which artificial fruits may be temporarily devoted; that said items have been produced by subjecting fibers of straw to various processing steps which result in a completed article of commerce in chief value of straw in its natural state; and that the issue is the same in all material respects as that involved in Louis Weinberg Associates, Inc. v. United States (29 Cust. Ct. 182, C. D. 1465). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited authority, the items marked “A” were held dutiable at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1558, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52827), for nonenumerated manufactured articles and the items marked “B” at 25 percent under paragraph 1537 (a) as manufactures of straw, not specially provided for.

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

Related

Louis Weinberg Associates, Inc. v. United States
29 Cust. Ct. 182 (U.S. Customs Court, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 Cust. Ct. 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boroff-norman-co-v-united-states-cusc-1956.