Norda Essential Oil & Chemical Co. v. United States

24 Cust. Ct. 474, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1974
United States Customs Court·Decided May 25, 1950·No. No. 54349; protests 154060-K, etc. (New York)·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of the essential and distilled oil of amyris balsamifera, which oil differs chemically from true sandalwood oil, and that following the decisions in Nylos Trading Co. v. United States (21 Cust. Ct. 86, C. D. 1133), affirmed in Same v. Same (37 C. C. P. A. 71, C. A. D. 422), and Fritzsche Bros., Inc. v. United States (21 Cust. Ct. 90, C. D. 1134), importations of such oil would now be classified as all other essential and distilled oils, not specially provided for. Applying the principles of the cited decisions to the facts in the case at bar as established by the stipulation the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

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

Norda Essential Oil & Chemical Co. v. United States, 24 Cust. Ct. 474, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1974 (cusc 1950).

24 Cust. Ct. 474 (Norda Essential Oil & Chemical Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nylos Trading Co. v. United States
21 Cust. Ct. 86 (U.S. Customs Court, 1948)
Fritzsche Bros. v. United States
21 Cust. Ct. 90 (U.S. Customs Court, 1948)