Electrolux Corp. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Electrolux Corp. v. United States

36 Cust. Ct. 391

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Electrolux Corp. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 40 Cust. Ct. 37 →

United States Customs Court·Decided April 5, 1956·No. No. 59814; protests 269535-K, etc. (New York)·Published

Opinion

[392]*392Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the electric floor polishers and electric vacuum cleaners are articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device and that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that involved in United States v. J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc. (42 C. C. P. A. 141, C. A. D. 586), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

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

[392]*392Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the electric floor polishers and electric vacuum cleaners are articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device and that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that involved in United States v. J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc. (42 C. C. P. A. 141, C. A. D. 586), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

Electrolux Corp. v. United States, 36 Cust. Ct. 391 (cusc 1956).

Pincite

36 Cust. Ct. 391 (Electrolux Corp. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.