Wagner v. United States

48 Cust. Ct. 395
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wagner v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 44 Cust. Ct. 424
United States Customs Court·Decided April 2, 1962·No. No. 66642; protests 59/14869, etc. (Los Angeles)·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of pigtails similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63984, the merchandise was held dutiable at 11 percent under the provision in paragraph 369(c), as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for parts of automobiles; the items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of signaling devices or parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64079, were held dutiable at 11%, 11, or 10% percent, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in said paragraph 369(c), as modified, supra, for parts of automobiles or trucks; and the items marked “O,” stipulated to consist of barricade flashers or parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64079, were held dutiable at 11% or 11 percent, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in paragraph 353, as modified, supra, for electrical signaling apparatus and devices, as claimed.

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

Wagner v. United States, 48 Cust. Ct. 395 (cusc 1962).

48 Cust. Ct. 395 (Wagner v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.