Pennsylvania Saw Corp. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Pennsylvania Saw Corp. v. United States

38 Cust. Ct. 511

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 24, 1957

DocketNo. 60786; protest 279406-K (Baltimore)

StatusPublished

This text of 38 Cust. Ct. 511 (Pennsylvania Saw Corp. 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

Pennsylvania Saw Corp. v. United States, 38 Cust. Ct. 511 (cusc 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

[512]*512Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

When this case was called for hearing, the official papers were received in evidence. In the collector’s report, it is stated that the liquidator was in error in assessing the additional duty but that, since the 90-day period within which the collector may modify his decision had expired, the protest was forwarded to the court for action. An examination of the laboratory report showed that the sample in question did not contain any alloying element in sufficient quantity to subject it to the additional duty under paragraph 305, as modified, supra. On the uncontroverted facts of record, it was held that the items of merchandise in question should not have been subjected to the additional duty, as claimed.

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

[512]*512Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

When this case was called for hearing, the official papers were received in evidence. In the collector’s report, it is stated that the liquidator was in error in assessing the additional duty but that, since the 90-day period within which the collector may modify his decision had expired, the protest was forwarded to the court for action. An examination of the laboratory report showed that the sample in question did not contain any alloying element in sufficient quantity to subject it to the additional duty under paragraph 305, as modified, supra. On the uncontroverted facts of record, it was held that the items of merchandise in question should not have been subjected to the additional duty, as claimed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Cust. Ct. 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-saw-corp-v-united-states-cusc-1957.