Protest 75453-K of Anderson

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 75453-K of Anderson

11 Cust. Ct. 285

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1943

DocketNo. 48879

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Cust. Ct. 285 (Protest 75453-K of Anderson) 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 75453-K of Anderson, 11 Cust. Ct. 285 (cusc 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

From an inspection of a representative sample^ marked exhibit 1, it was found to consist of the usual type of automobile road map. Though it has some additional text, this text was found not to be of such nature as to be covered by the Canadian Trade-Agreement (T. D. 49752), which is one of the claims in the protest. As the eo nomine provision for maps in paragraph 1410 and T. D. 49753 was found to be more specific than that for articles lithographically printed (paragraph 1406), and that claim being conceded by the Government in its brief, the court held the maps dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1410 and T. D. 49753, as claimed. Sheldon v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 42, T. D. 33265) noted.

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

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

From an inspection of a representative sample^ marked exhibit 1, it was found to consist of the usual type of automobile road map. Though it has some additional text, this text was found not to be of such nature as to be covered by the Canadian Trade-Agreement (T. D. 49752), which is one of the claims in the protest. As the eo nomine provision for maps in paragraph 1410 and T. D. 49753 was found to be more specific than that for articles lithographically printed (paragraph 1406), and that claim being conceded by the Government in its brief, the court held the maps dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1410 and T. D. 49753, as claimed. Sheldon v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 42, T. D. 33265) noted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Cust. Ct. 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-75453-k-of-anderson-cusc-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack