Paul Marshall Products, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Paul Marshall Products, Inc. v. United States

59 Cust. Ct. 158, 1967 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2236

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedAugust 30, 1967

DocketC.D. 3103

StatusPublished

This text of 59 Cust. Ct. 158 (Paul Marshall Products, 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

Paul Marshall Products, Inc. v. United States, 59 Cust. Ct. 158, 1967 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2236 (cusc 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

LaNdis, Judge:

These protests claim that earthenware articles classified under paragraph 211 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as tableware, kitchenware, or table or kitchen utensils, are properly dutiable under said paragraph 211 as earthenware articles which are not tableware, kitchenware, or table or kitchen utensils.

• Counsel have submitted these cases on the following stipulation :

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, as to merchandise covered by the protests enumerated in the annexed Schedule which is incorporated herein:

1. That the merchandise represented by the items marked “A” and initialed SJS by Sadami J. Sako on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the protests enumerated in Schedule A annexed hereto and made a part hereof, assessed with duty at 100 per dozen pieces and 40% ad valorem under Par. 211 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and claimed properly dutiable at only 100 per dozen pieces and 25% ad valorem under Par. 211 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 53865, consists of decorated earthenware articles, valued under $3 per dozen pieces, which are not tableware, kitchenware, or table or kitchen utensils.

2. That these protests may be deemed submitted on this stipulation and the record thus made.

[159]*159Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, we hold that the earthenware articles, valued under $3 per dozen pieces, and represented by the items marked with the letter “A” and with the initials of the commodity specialist on the invoices covered by the entries in these protests, are not tableware, kitchenware, or table or kitchen utensils, and are dutiable at the rate of 10 cents per dozen pieces and 25 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 211, as modified by the Protocol of Terms of Accession by Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 53865.

To the extent indicated the protests are sustained. In all other respects and as to all other merchandise, the protests are overruled.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

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

LaNdis, Judge:

These protests claim that earthenware articles classified under paragraph 211 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as tableware, kitchenware, or table or kitchen utensils, are properly dutiable under said paragraph 211 as earthenware articles which are not tableware, kitchenware, or table or kitchen utensils.

• Counsel have submitted these cases on the following stipulation :

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, as to merchandise covered by the protests enumerated in the annexed Schedule which is incorporated herein:

1. That the merchandise represented by the items marked “A” and initialed SJS by Sadami J. Sako on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the protests enumerated in Schedule A annexed hereto and made a part hereof, assessed with duty at 100 per dozen pieces and 40% ad valorem under Par. 211 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and claimed properly dutiable at only 100 per dozen pieces and 25% ad valorem under Par. 211 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 53865, consists of decorated earthenware articles, valued under $3 per dozen pieces, which are not tableware, kitchenware, or table or kitchen utensils.

2. That these protests may be deemed submitted on this stipulation and the record thus made.

[159]*159Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, we hold that the earthenware articles, valued under $3 per dozen pieces, and represented by the items marked with the letter “A” and with the initials of the commodity specialist on the invoices covered by the entries in these protests, are not tableware, kitchenware, or table or kitchen utensils, and are dutiable at the rate of 10 cents per dozen pieces and 25 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 211, as modified by the Protocol of Terms of Accession by Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 53865.

To the extent indicated the protests are sustained. In all other respects and as to all other merchandise, the protests are overruled.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 Cust. Ct. 158, 1967 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-marshall-products-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1967.