Dmitrovsky Bros. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Dmitrovsky Bros. v. United States

36 Cust. Ct. 389

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedApril 5, 1956

DocketNo. 59806; protests 941943-G, etc. (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 36 Cust. Ct. 389 (Dmitrovsky 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

Dmitrovsky Bros. v. United States, 36 Cust. Ct. 389 (cusc 1956).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the items marked “A” consist of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of Rung Chen Fur Corpn. v. United States (29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) and that the items marked “B” consist of lambskin plates similar to those the subject of A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc. v. United States (33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643). Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact and following the cited decisions, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

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

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the items marked “A” consist of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of Rung Chen Fur Corpn. v. United States (29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) and that the items marked “B” consist of lambskin plates similar to those the subject of A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc. v. United States (33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643). Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact and following the cited decisions, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Cust. Ct. 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dmitrovsky-bros-v-united-states-cusc-1956.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack