Protest 947300-G of E. P. Paul & Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 947300-G of E. P. Paul & Co.

15 Cust. Ct. 285

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedOctober 3, 1945

DocketNo. 50550

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Cust. Ct. 285 (Protest 947300-G of E. P. Paul & 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 947300-G of E. P. Paul & Co., 15 Cust. Ct. 285 (cusc 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was agreed between the parties that the sets are not entireties, and the claim is therefore limited to the tray. At the trial it was stipulated that the tray is a table or kitchen article or utensil composed wholly or in chief value of glass, pressed and unpolished, except that the bottom surfaces of the two legs thereof are ground and then polished for purposes other than ornamentation, to wit, to make the said bottom surface smooth and level. It was held that the articles, while made of pressed glass, not having been decorated or ornamented in any manner, having been ground for purposes other than ornamentation, and polished, are not properly classifiable under paragraph 218 (g). The court therefore found the glass articles in- question to be properly dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 230 (d)'.

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

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was agreed between the parties that the sets are not entireties, and the claim is therefore limited to the tray. At the trial it was stipulated that the tray is a table or kitchen article or utensil composed wholly or in chief value of glass, pressed and unpolished, except that the bottom surfaces of the two legs thereof are ground and then polished for purposes other than ornamentation, to wit, to make the said bottom surface smooth and level. It was held that the articles, while made of pressed glass, not having been decorated or ornamented in any manner, having been ground for purposes other than ornamentation, and polished, are not properly classifiable under paragraph 218 (g). The court therefore found the glass articles in- question to be properly dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 230 (d)'.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Cust. Ct. 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-947300-g-of-e-p-paul-co-cusc-1945.