Shaland v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Shaland v. United States

39 Cust. Ct. 344

United States Customs Court·Decided July 3, 1957·No. No. 60988; protests 310156-K and 310277-K (New York)·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” and “B” consist of dime savings banks similar in all material respects to those the subject of M. Pressner & Co. v. United States (36 Cust. Ct. 262, C. D. 1784), the items marked “A” were held dutiable at 12 percent under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the Torquay [345] Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), for articles, not specially provided for, wholly or in chief value of tin or tin plate, and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at 22)4 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, for manufactures of metal, not specially provided for.

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

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” and “B” consist of dime savings banks similar in all material respects to those the subject of M. Pressner & Co. v. United States (36 Cust. Ct. 262, C. D. 1784), the items marked “A” were held dutiable at 12 percent under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the Torquay [345] Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), for articles, not specially provided for, wholly or in chief value of tin or tin plate, and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at 22)4 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, for manufactures of metal, not specially provided for.

Shaland v. United States, 39 Cust. Ct. 344 (cusc 1957).

Pincite

39 Cust. Ct. 344 (Shaland v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related