Hudson Merchandise Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Hudson Merchandise Co. v. United States

60 Cust. Ct. 259, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2512

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMarch 11, 1968

DocketC.D. 3352

StatusPublished

This text of 60 Cust. Ct. 259 (Hudson Merchandise Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hudson Merchandise Co. v. United States, 60 Cust. Ct. 259, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2512 (cusc 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Maletz, Judge:

This protest has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the items marked “A” and initialed PJM (Import Specialist’s Initials) by Import Specialist P. J. Meehan (Import Specialist’s Name) on the invoice covered by the subject protest and assessed at 50% ad valorem under Paragraph 218(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 51802 and T.D. 51898, consist of sand-timers, claimed dutiable at 30% ad valorem under Paragraph 218(f), as modified, as blown glass articles of every description, not specially provided for.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise here in issue is the same in all material respects to that involved in Hudson Merchandise Co. v. United States, C.D. 3075, wherein such merchandise was held to be properly dutiable at 30% ad valorem under. Paragraph 218(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, and that the record therein be incorporated in this case, and that the protest be submitted on this stipulation, such protest being limited to the items marked “A” as aforesaid.

On the agreed facts and following our cited decision on the law, we hold the articles in question, as hereinabove identified, to be properly dutiable at the rate of 30 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 218(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, as blown glass articles of every description, not specially provided for.

To the extent indicated the protest is sustained and judgment will be rendered accordingly.

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

Maletz, Judge:

This protest has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the items marked “A” and initialed PJM (Import Specialist’s Initials) by Import Specialist P. J. Meehan (Import Specialist’s Name) on the invoice covered by the subject protest and assessed at 50% ad valorem under Paragraph 218(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 51802 and T.D. 51898, consist of sand-timers, claimed dutiable at 30% ad valorem under Paragraph 218(f), as modified, as blown glass articles of every description, not specially provided for.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise here in issue is the same in all material respects to that involved in Hudson Merchandise Co. v. United States, C.D. 3075, wherein such merchandise was held to be properly dutiable at 30% ad valorem under. Paragraph 218(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, and that the record therein be incorporated in this case, and that the protest be submitted on this stipulation, such protest being limited to the items marked “A” as aforesaid.

On the agreed facts and following our cited decision on the law, we hold the articles in question, as hereinabove identified, to be properly dutiable at the rate of 30 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 218(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, as blown glass articles of every description, not specially provided for.

To the extent indicated the protest is sustained and judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Cust. Ct. 259, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-merchandise-co-v-united-states-cusc-1968.