Louis Greenberg & Son, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Louis Greenberg & Son, Inc. v. United States

56 Cust. Ct. 357, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1971

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedApril 12, 1966

DocketC.D. 2653

StatusPublished

This text of 56 Cust. Ct. 357 (Louis Greenberg & Son, Inc. 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

Louis Greenberg & Son, Inc. v. United States, 56 Cust. Ct. 357, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1971 (cusc 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Bao, Chief Judge:

The merchandise covered by the protests enumerated in the schedule of protests, attached to this decision and made a part hereof, consists of battery-operated lanterns which were assessed with duty at the rate in effect at the time of entry or withdrawal from warehouse for articles described in paragraph 339 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, or by the Torquay Protocol to said General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. [358]*358Dec. 121, T. D. 52739, or by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to said General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, as household utensils, not specially provided for, wholly or in chief value of iron, steel, or other base metal.

It is claimed in said protests that the merchandise in issue consists of articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device within the purview of paragraph 353 of said act, as modified by said Torquay protocol, which are dutiable at the rate of 13% per centum ad valorem.

These protests have been submitted for decision upon a written stipulation of counsel for the respective parties hereto to the effect that said merchandise, assessed as above and represented by the invoice items marked “A” and checked JB, by Examiner J. Bistreich, consists of battery-operated lanterns which contain as an essential feature an electrical element or device, which are not illuminating or lighting fixtures, or lamps, and which do not contain any electrical heating elements.

Upon the agreed facts, we hold the merchandise here in issue, identified by invoice items marked and checked as aforesaid, to be dutiable at the rate of 13% per centum ad valorem pursuant to the provision in paragraph 353 of said tariff act, as modified by said Torquay protocol, for articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device. The claim in the protests to that effect is sustained. All other claims are, however, overruled.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

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

Bao, Chief Judge:

The merchandise covered by the protests enumerated in the schedule of protests, attached to this decision and made a part hereof, consists of battery-operated lanterns which were assessed with duty at the rate in effect at the time of entry or withdrawal from warehouse for articles described in paragraph 339 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, or by the Torquay Protocol to said General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. [358]*358Dec. 121, T. D. 52739, or by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to said General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, as household utensils, not specially provided for, wholly or in chief value of iron, steel, or other base metal.

It is claimed in said protests that the merchandise in issue consists of articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device within the purview of paragraph 353 of said act, as modified by said Torquay protocol, which are dutiable at the rate of 13% per centum ad valorem.

These protests have been submitted for decision upon a written stipulation of counsel for the respective parties hereto to the effect that said merchandise, assessed as above and represented by the invoice items marked “A” and checked JB, by Examiner J. Bistreich, consists of battery-operated lanterns which contain as an essential feature an electrical element or device, which are not illuminating or lighting fixtures, or lamps, and which do not contain any electrical heating elements.

Upon the agreed facts, we hold the merchandise here in issue, identified by invoice items marked and checked as aforesaid, to be dutiable at the rate of 13% per centum ad valorem pursuant to the provision in paragraph 353 of said tariff act, as modified by said Torquay protocol, for articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device. The claim in the protests to that effect is sustained. All other claims are, however, overruled.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Cust. Ct. 357, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-greenberg-son-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1966.