Mireles v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Mireles v. United States

50 Cust. Ct. 285, 1963 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3832

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 2, 1963

DocketNo. 67670; protest 329377-K (Laredo)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 Cust. Ct. 285 (Mireles 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

Mireles v. United States, 50 Cust. Ct. 285, 1963 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3832 (cusc 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This protest relates to a certain commodity which was classified under the provision for “Barytes ore, crude or unmanufactured,” in paragraph 67 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by T.D. 54108, carrying a duty assessment of $2.85 per ton. Plaintiff claims that the goods are free of duty under the provision in paragraph 1719 of the Tariff Act of 1930, for crude minerals, not specially provided for.

[286]*286Stipulated facts, upon which, the case has been submitted, show that the present merchandise is crude minerals, that it contains “less than 40 percent barium sulphate, more than 40 percent ferric oxide, with the remainder consisting of silica and calcium salts,” that the “said merchandise was not sought for its barium sulphate or for its ferric oxide content, but was sought for the specific gravity of the imported material in toto,” that “said merchandise was imported solely to be used as a weighting for coating pipe,” and that it “was not used for its barium sulphate or ferric oxide content. ” (R. 7.)

The agreed facts are sufficient to establish the correctness of plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, we hold the merchandise in question to be free of duty under paragraph 1719, supra, as crude minerals, not specially provided for, as claimed.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This protest relates to a certain commodity which was classified under the provision for “Barytes ore, crude or unmanufactured,” in paragraph 67 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by T.D. 54108, carrying a duty assessment of $2.85 per ton. Plaintiff claims that the goods are free of duty under the provision in paragraph 1719 of the Tariff Act of 1930, for crude minerals, not specially provided for.

[286]*286Stipulated facts, upon which, the case has been submitted, show that the present merchandise is crude minerals, that it contains “less than 40 percent barium sulphate, more than 40 percent ferric oxide, with the remainder consisting of silica and calcium salts,” that the “said merchandise was not sought for its barium sulphate or for its ferric oxide content, but was sought for the specific gravity of the imported material in toto,” that “said merchandise was imported solely to be used as a weighting for coating pipe,” and that it “was not used for its barium sulphate or ferric oxide content. ” (R. 7.)

The agreed facts are sufficient to establish the correctness of plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, we hold the merchandise in question to be free of duty under paragraph 1719, supra, as crude minerals, not specially provided for, as claimed.

The protest is sustained, and judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Cust. Ct. 285, 1963 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mireles-v-united-states-cusc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack