Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. v. United States
39 Cust. Ct. 338
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 34 Cust. Ct. 182 →
United States Customs Court·Decided June 28, 1957·No. No. 60964; protest 285044-K (New York)·Published
Opinion
Opinion by
In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Ekaline, which product is not obtained from any oil, fat, or fatty acid described in the Internal Revenue Code, but is derived in part from sperm oil, which is not covered by the statute, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. v. United States, 39 Cust. Ct. 338 (cusc 1957).
39 Cust. Ct. 338 (Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.