Quon Quon Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Quon Quon Co. v. United States

44 Cust. Ct. 308

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJanuary 7, 1960

DocketNo. 63689; protests 272397-K, etc. (Los Angeles)

StatusPublished

This text of 44 Cust. Ct. 308 (Quon Quon Co. v. United States) 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

Quon Quon Co. v. United States, 44 Cust. Ct. 308 (cusc 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of kleenex box covers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Quon Quon Company v. United States (41 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2038), the claim at 16% percent under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52476), for other manufactures of wood, not specially provided for, was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of rattan flower cages the same as those the subject of Quon Quon Company v. United States (41 Cust. Ct. 181, C.D. 2039), were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 409 of the tariff act as rattan articles.

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

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of kleenex box covers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Quon Quon Company v. United States (41 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2038), the claim at 16% percent under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52476), for other manufactures of wood, not specially provided for, was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of rattan flower cages the same as those the subject of Quon Quon Company v. United States (41 Cust. Ct. 181, C.D. 2039), were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 409 of the tariff act as rattan articles.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 Cust. Ct. 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quon-quon-co-v-united-states-cusc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack