E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States

50 Cust. Ct. 196, 1963 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 4105

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 February 4, 1963·No. No. 67406; protest 61/20515 (Ogdensburg)·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of two Thera-tron C therapy units, including cobalt 60 source ; a Theratron F therapy unit, including cohalt 60 source; a Caesatron -therapy unit, including Caesium source, set of six cores, and eight-sided adjustable diaphragm; and an eight-sided diaphragm for cobalt 60 therapy unit, -imported for the use of a nonprofit organization, for educational, scientific, or therapeutic purposes, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

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

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of two Thera-tron C therapy units, including cobalt 60 source ; a Theratron F therapy unit, including cohalt 60 source; a Caesatron -therapy unit, including Caesium source, set of six cores, and eight-sided adjustable diaphragm; and an eight-sided diaphragm for cobalt 60 therapy unit, -imported for the use of a nonprofit organization, for educational, scientific, or therapeutic purposes, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States, 50 Cust. Ct. 196, 1963 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 4105 (cusc 1963).

Pincite

50 Cust. Ct. 196 (E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.