Hancock Gross Mfg., Inc. v. United States

61 Cust. Ct. 638, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1785
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hancock Gross Mfg., Inc. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 60 Cust. Ct. 558
United States Customs Court·Decided August 20, 1968·No. No. P68/338; protests 63/5964, etc. (Philadelphia)·Published

Opinion

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “B” or “C” covered by the foregoing protests consist of hose nozzles in chief value of brass or zinc and that said items consist either of hose nozzles that are the same in all material respects as those the subject of United States v. Lifman’s (52 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 859) or they consist of sprays, connections, couplings, adaptors, shutoffs, or nipples, each item, being screwed on to the end of a garden hose in the same manner that the aforementioned nozzles are attached to a garden hose, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

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

Hancock Gross Mfg., Inc. v. United States, 61 Cust. Ct. 638, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1785 (cusc 1968).

61 Cust. Ct. 638 (Hancock Gross Mfg., Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.