Protests 123206-G of Gimbel Bros.

U.S. Customs Court

Protests 123206-G of Gimbel Bros.

2 Cust. Ct. 692

United States Customs Court·Decided May 8, 1939·No. No. 41241·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the commodities in question were held dutiable as follows: (1) merchandise in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those the subject of Abstract 37230, and cloches composed in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those passed upon in Amberg v. United States (T. D. 46204) at 60 percent under paragraph 31; (2) embroidered caps and napkins at 75 percent under paragraph 1430, Pustet v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530, T. D. 41396) followed; and (3) artificial flowers similar to those the subject of Robinson-Goodman v. United States (17 C. C. P. A. 149, T. D. 43473) at 60 percent under paragraph 1419.

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

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the commodities in question were held dutiable as follows: (1) merchandise in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those the subject of Abstract 37230, and cloches composed in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those passed upon in Amberg v. United States (T. D. 46204) at 60 percent under paragraph 31; (2) embroidered caps and napkins at 75 percent under paragraph 1430, Pustet v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530, T. D. 41396) followed; and (3) artificial flowers similar to those the subject of Robinson-Goodman v. United States (17 C. C. P. A. 149, T. D. 43473) at 60 percent under paragraph 1419.

Protests 123206-G of Gimbel Bros., 2 Cust. Ct. 692 (cusc 1939).

Pincite

2 Cust. Ct. 692 (Protests 123206-G of Gimbel Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related