Tower v. United States

29 Cust. Ct. 341, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1463
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Tower v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 24 Cust. Ct. 353
United States Customs Court·Decided July 2, 1952·No. No. 56783; protest 155890-K (Buffalo)·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of a zinc die-casting alloy similar in all material respects to the product passed upon in M. W. Zack Metal Company v. United States (26 Cust. Ct. 91, C. D. 1306), which the court held to be classifiable under paragraph 397 as articles in chief value of zinc, not specially provided for. However, inasmuch as the plaintiff in the cited case did not claim classification under paragraph 397, the protest therein was overruled without affirming the collector’s classification. On the record presented herein, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

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

Tower v. United States, 29 Cust. Ct. 341, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1463 (cusc 1952).

29 Cust. Ct. 341 (Tower v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

M. W. Zack Metal Co. v. United States
26 Cust. Ct. 91 (U.S. Customs Court, 1951)