Sunwear, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Sunwear, Inc. v. United States

45 Cust. Ct. 368

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedNovember 14, 1960

DocketNo. 64875; protest 59/8788 (Boston)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 Cust. Ct. 368 (Sunwear, Inc. 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

Sunwear, Inc. v. United States, 45 Cust. Ct. 368 (cusc 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Ford, Judge:

The merchandise in the case at bar, invoiced as “Chipwood Hats, Item No. 5250,” was classified under paragraph 1504(b) (3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dee. 150, T.D. 54108, .and assessed with duty at the rate of $2.28 per dozen and 11% per centum ad valorem under the provision for “Hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed wholly or in chief value of straw, chip, * * * Blocked or trimmed, whether or not bleached; dye.0? epjpred, or stained * * *.”

[369]*369Plaintiff, by its protest, claims that said bats are not trimmed and, accordingly, are properly dutiable at 15 cents per dozen and 12% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1504(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Protocol of terms of accession by Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 90 Treas. Dec. 234, T.D. '53865, and T.D. 53877, as “Hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed wholly or in chief value of chip, * * * Other, if bleached, dyed, colored, or stained.”

When this case was called for hearing, counsel for the respective parties stipulated in effect that the merchandise described as item No. 5250, covering 20 dozen shipwood hats, consisted of hats in chief value of chip, bleached and colored, but not blocked, trimmed, or sewed.

Accepting these facts, we find that said item No. 5250 consists of hats in chief value of chip, which are not trimmed, and, accordingly, are properly dutiable at the rate of 15 cents per dozen and 12% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1504(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, supra\ as claimed by plaintiff herein.

To the extent indicated, the specified claim in this suit is sustained; in all other respects and as to all other merchandise, all the claims are overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

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

Ford, Judge:

The merchandise in the case at bar, invoiced as “Chipwood Hats, Item No. 5250,” was classified under paragraph 1504(b) (3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dee. 150, T.D. 54108, .and assessed with duty at the rate of $2.28 per dozen and 11% per centum ad valorem under the provision for “Hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed wholly or in chief value of straw, chip, * * * Blocked or trimmed, whether or not bleached; dye.0? epjpred, or stained * * *.”

[369]*369Plaintiff, by its protest, claims that said bats are not trimmed and, accordingly, are properly dutiable at 15 cents per dozen and 12% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1504(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Protocol of terms of accession by Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 90 Treas. Dec. 234, T.D. '53865, and T.D. 53877, as “Hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed wholly or in chief value of chip, * * * Other, if bleached, dyed, colored, or stained.”

When this case was called for hearing, counsel for the respective parties stipulated in effect that the merchandise described as item No. 5250, covering 20 dozen shipwood hats, consisted of hats in chief value of chip, bleached and colored, but not blocked, trimmed, or sewed.

Accepting these facts, we find that said item No. 5250 consists of hats in chief value of chip, which are not trimmed, and, accordingly, are properly dutiable at the rate of 15 cents per dozen and 12% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1504(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, supra\ as claimed by plaintiff herein.

To the extent indicated, the specified claim in this suit is sustained; in all other respects and as to all other merchandise, all the claims are overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Cust. Ct. 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunwear-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack