Protests 954382-G of Eimer & Amend

U.S. Customs Court

Protests 954382-G of Eimer & Amend

5 Cust. Ct. 282

United States Customs Court·Decided July 22, 1940·No. No. 44126·Published

Opinion

[283]*283Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The merchandise consisted of tiny glass balls about the size of a buckshot. From the testimony it was found that it is not scientific, chemical, or laboratory glassware as classified by the collector, apparently in view of United States v. Boker, 90 Fed. 804. The claim at SO percent under paragraph 230 (d) as manufactures of glass, not specially provided for, was therefore sustained. United States v. Harding Co. (21 C. C. P. A. 307, T. D. 46830), Lassky v. United States (id. 201, T. D. 46727), and United States v. Embossing Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appl. 220, T. D. 32536) followed.

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

[283]*283Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The merchandise consisted of tiny glass balls about the size of a buckshot. From the testimony it was found that it is not scientific, chemical, or laboratory glassware as classified by the collector, apparently in view of United States v. Boker, 90 Fed. 804. The claim at SO percent under paragraph 230 (d) as manufactures of glass, not specially provided for, was therefore sustained. United States v. Harding Co. (21 C. C. P. A. 307, T. D. 46830), Lassky v. United States (id. 201, T. D. 46727), and United States v. Embossing Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appl. 220, T. D. 32536) followed.

Protests 954382-G of Eimer & Amend, 5 Cust. Ct. 282 (cusc 1940).

Pincite

5 Cust. Ct. 282 (Protests 954382-G of Eimer & Amend) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related