Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. v. United States
59 Cust. Ct. 873, 1967 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1762
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 59 Cust. Ct. 529 →
Opinion
In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of battery-operated manicure sets; that said merchandise contains as an essential feature - an electrical element or device without which said articles would not operate, and does not contain an electrical heating element; and that the principles involved are the same as those in Bruce Duncan Company, a/c Sims-Worms v. United States (45 Cust. Ct. 85, C.D. 2202), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. v. United States, 59 Cust. Ct. 873, 1967 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1762 (cusc 1967).
59 Cust. Ct. 873 (Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bruce Duncan Co. v. United States
45 Cust. Ct. 85 (U.S. Customs Court, 1960)