C. M. Offray & Son, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

C. M. Offray & Son, Inc. v. United States

52 Cust. Ct. 242, 1964 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3827

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJanuary 16, 1964

DocketNo. 68250; protests 320364-K and 258344-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 52 Cust. Ct. 242 (C. M. Offray & Son, Inc. 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

C. M. Offray & Son, Inc. v. United States, 52 Cust. Ct. 242, 1964 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3827 (cusc 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

[243]*243Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of nylon pile ribbons similar in use to silk pile ribbons, the claim at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1206, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of nylon ribbons similar in use to silk ribbons made from fabrics with fast edges, not over 12 inches wide, were held dutiable at 22% percent under paragraph 1207, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), as claimed. United States v. Steinberg Bros. (47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), followed.

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

[243]*243Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of nylon pile ribbons similar in use to silk pile ribbons, the claim at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1206, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of nylon ribbons similar in use to silk ribbons made from fabrics with fast edges, not over 12 inches wide, were held dutiable at 22% percent under paragraph 1207, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), as claimed. United States v. Steinberg Bros. (47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), followed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Cust. Ct. 242, 1964 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-m-offray-son-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1964.