E. Leitz, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

E. Leitz, Inc. v. United States

42 Cust. Ct. 413

United States Customs Court·Decided June 16, 1959·No. No. 63176; protests 268090-K, 268091-K, and 252920-K (New York)·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

On the agreed facts, protest 268090-K was dismissed as to the items marked “B,” covered by entries 865418 and 21183, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)). The items marked “C,” stipulated to consist of parts of photographic cameras similar in all material respects to the merchandise involved in Manca, Inc. v. United States (38 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 1874), were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1551, as claimed.

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

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

On the agreed facts, protest 268090-K was dismissed as to the items marked “B,” covered by entries 865418 and 21183, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)). The items marked “C,” stipulated to consist of parts of photographic cameras similar in all material respects to the merchandise involved in Manca, Inc. v. United States (38 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 1874), were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1551, as claimed.

E. Leitz, Inc. v. United States, 42 Cust. Ct. 413 (cusc 1959).

Pincite

42 Cust. Ct. 413 (E. Leitz, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related