E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States
46 Cust. Ct. 517
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 46 Cust. Ct. 771 →
United States Customs Court·Decided June 1, 1961·No. No. 65739; protests 214319-K, 273648-K, and 214320-K (Ogdensburg)·Published
Opinion
Opinion by
In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in use to thrown silk not more advanced than singles, tram, or organzine and following the principles set forth in United States v. Steinberg Bros. (47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States, 46 Cust. Ct. 517 (cusc 1961).
46 Cust. Ct. 517 (E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Steinberg Bros.
47 C.C.P.A. 47 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1959)