Vandegrift v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Vandegrift v. United States

38 Cust. Ct. 516

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 29, 1957

DocketNo. 60798; protest 145619-K (Philadelphia)

StatusPublished

This text of 38 Cust. Ct. 516 (Vandegrift 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

Vandegrift v. United States, 38 Cust. Ct. 516 (cusc 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159, which was issued following United States v. Fred Whitaker Company, Inc. (40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492). In that case, it was held that the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rates applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content Under T. D. 53159” in the schedule included in the stipulation.

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

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159, which was issued following United States v. Fred Whitaker Company, Inc. (40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492). In that case, it was held that the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rates applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content Under T. D. 53159” in the schedule included in the stipulation.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Cust. Ct. 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandegrift-v-united-states-cusc-1957.