E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States

28 Cust. Ct. 442, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 359

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedApril 1, 1952

DocketNo. 56519; protest 162909-K (Ogdensburg)

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Cust. Ct. 442 (E. Dillingham, 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

E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States, 28 Cust. Ct. 442, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 359 (cusc 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

[443]*443Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that at the time of entry of the goods in controversy they were articles of which metal was the component material of chief value and were not ores or concentrates or crude metal; that said articles were imported to be used in remanufacture by melting; and that since entry, said articles were melted and remanufactured by melting. An examination of the papers disclosed that affidavits have been filed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, supra. Upon the record presented, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, supra, and is properly entitled to free entry.

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

[443]*443Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that at the time of entry of the goods in controversy they were articles of which metal was the component material of chief value and were not ores or concentrates or crude metal; that said articles were imported to be used in remanufacture by melting; and that since entry, said articles were melted and remanufactured by melting. An examination of the papers disclosed that affidavits have been filed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, supra. Upon the record presented, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, supra, and is properly entitled to free entry.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Cust. Ct. 442, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-dillingham-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1952.