Protest 159634-G of R. H. Macy & Co.

3 Cust. Ct. 342
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedAugust 7, 1939
DocketNo. 41893
StatusPublished

This text of 3 Cust. Ct. 342 (Protest 159634-G of R. H. Macy & Co.) 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
Protest 159634-G of R. H. Macy & Co., 3 Cust. Ct. 342 (cusc 1939).

Opinion

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of United States v. Amrein (26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40) Normandy laces were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430. Embroidered shirts .and dresses similar to those involved in United States v. Smith (12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384, T. D. 40544) and lace window curtains similar to those the subject <of Billwiller v. United States (T. D. 44911) were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430. Artificial flowers the same as those the subject of Robinson-■Goodman v. United States (17 C. C. P. A. 149, T. D. 43473) were held dutiable At 60 percent' under paragraph 1419.

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

Related

United States v. Smith & Co.
12 Ct. Cust. 384 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Cust. Ct. 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-159634-g-of-r-h-macy-co-cusc-1939.