Protest 94919-K of Strauss-Eckardt Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 94919-K of Strauss-Eckardt Co.

15 Cust. Ct. 267

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedSeptember 14, 1945

DocketNo. 50488

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 Cust. Ct. 267 (Protest 94919-K of Strauss-Eckardt 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 94919-K of Strauss-Eckardt Co., 15 Cust. Ct. 267 (cusc 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial the record in Kempner v. United States (11 Cust. Ct. 173, C. D. 820) was incorporated herein. There, similar shaving sets were held properly dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 rather than at 50 percent under paragraph 230 (b) as mirrors. Although no samples from the present importation were retained, the exhibits in the incorporated case were in evidence. Plaintiff’s witness testified that the sets in question were similar to those in the incorporated case, the only difference being that some of the sets in the instant importation have upright stands whereas the merchandise in the incorporated case had folding stands. From an examination of the entire record the court was satisfied that the cited decision is controlling, particularly since it was not disputed that the instant sets are entireties. Following that authority, it was held that the involved sets are properly dutiable as claimed.

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

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial the record in Kempner v. United States (11 Cust. Ct. 173, C. D. 820) was incorporated herein. There, similar shaving sets were held properly dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 rather than at 50 percent under paragraph 230 (b) as mirrors. Although no samples from the present importation were retained, the exhibits in the incorporated case were in evidence. Plaintiff’s witness testified that the sets in question were similar to those in the incorporated case, the only difference being that some of the sets in the instant importation have upright stands whereas the merchandise in the incorporated case had folding stands. From an examination of the entire record the court was satisfied that the cited decision is controlling, particularly since it was not disputed that the instant sets are entireties. Following that authority, it was held that the involved sets are properly dutiable as claimed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Cust. Ct. 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-94919-k-of-strauss-eckardt-co-cusc-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack