United States Customs Court Court Cases

Search
  1. Mattel, Inc. v. United States (1974)

    These six consolidated actions come before the court on plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The merit of plaintiff's claim as to the proper classification of the importations is not in dispute. The sole issue, rather, is whether certain "Sec. 520(c) request letters" (as they are characterized in the complaint) constitute valid protests within the meaning of section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514),[1] and [...]

    Court: United States Customs Court
  2. CJ Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States (1972)

    This matter is before me for determination pursuant to a motion by defendant for summary judgment by virtue of Rule 8.2 of the Rules of this Court. Plaintiff in its cross-motion also seeks summary judgment under said rule.


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.D. 4327 Protest No. 70/1827-6305
  3. Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. v. United States (1980)

    Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Joseph I. Liebman, New York City, Attorney in Charge, for Customs Litigation, and Sidney N. Weiss, Trial Attorney, New York City, for defendant.


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.D. 4848 Court No. 77-8-02004
  4. Diamond Match Company v. United States (1960)

    The merchandise involved in this case consists of wooden spatulas or ice cream sticks, approximately 4½ inches long and three-eighths of an inch wide, imported from Japan, in bundles of 50, held together by a paper band or strip 1½ inches wide. The band is marked "Made in Japan," but the individual sticks are not marked. Such sticks are used primarily by the ice cream industry for insertion in ice cream bars or confections and are sold to domestic ice cream manufacturers for such use.


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.D. 2154 Protest No. 58/21335
  5. Imbert Imports, Inc. v. United States (1971)

    Plaintiffs below have filed this application for review seeking reversal of the decision and judgment of Watson, J. in Imbert Imports, Inc., et al. v. United States, 65 Cust.Ct. 697, 314 F.Supp. 784, R.D. 11718 (1970), wherein the trial judge upheld dumping duty appraisements on fourteen entries of portland gray cement[1] exported by Fabrica Dominicana de Cemento C, por A. in the Dominican Republic during the period between October 25, 1962 and March 25, 1963, and entered at the port of San [...]

    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: A.R.D. 294 Reap. No. R63/5025 and 13 others
  6. Schott Optical Glass, Inc. v. United States (1979)

    The question presented in this case pertains to the proper classification for customs duty purposes, of color filter glass imported from West Germany. As shown by the samples in evidence, the merchandise consists of pieces of glass which are 6½ inches square and colored. The colors of the glass include shades of red, green, blue, yellow and gray.


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.D. 4783 Court No. 72-6-01326
  7. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co. v. United States (1971)

    The merchandise involved in this case is described on the entry as "Unf. Virgin Naphtha derived from petroleum." Two lots were imported from Venezuela and entered at the port of Ponce, Puerto Rico on June 23, 1967. Both lots were entered under item 475.35, Tariff Schedules of the United States, as "Naphtha derived from petroleum" with a duty of 0.25 cent per gallon. On September 15, 1967, both lots were appraised and liquidated as entered.[1] Thereafter, on November 13, 1967, the entry was [...]

    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.D. 4267 Protest No. 68/55086-151
  8. JE Bernard & Co. v. United States (1971)

    Collateral estoppel, it is to be noted, is an aspect of res judicata.[1] As explained in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597-598, 68 S.Ct. 715, 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948): "The general rule of res judicata applies to repetitious suits involving the same cause of action. It rests upon considerations of economy of judicial time and public policy favoring the establishment of certainty in legal relations. The rule provides that when a court of competent jurisdiction has entered [...]

    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: R.D. 11739 Reappraisement R65/22938
  9. International Navigation Co. v. United States (1957)

    This is a protest against the collector's assessment of an ad valorem duty of 50 per centum under section 466 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 257, 258, on the cost of certain repairs made in foreign countries to a vessel documented under the laws of the United States to engage in the foreign or coasting trade and against the decision of the collector or his assistant and that of the Chief of the Division of Classification, Entry, and Value denying an application for relief from such [...]

    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.D. 1836 Protest No. 206465-K
  10. Knickerbocker Liquors Corp. v. United States (1977)

    Pursuant to rules 4.7(b)(2) and 4.12 of the rules of court, the defendant has moved to dismiss the above-entitled action for lack of jurisdiction because of plaintiff's failure to timely file the summons in said action pursuant to 28 U.S.C., section 2631(a), providing:


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.R.D. 77-5 Court No. 74-11-03088
  11. Canadian Vinyl Industries v. United States (1976)

    This case involves an importation composed of a glossy polyurethane "skin" on one side and a nylon fabric on the reverse. The merchandise was classified as other fabrics of textile materials of man-made fibers, coated or laminated with plastic.[1] Plaintiff's principal claim[2] is for classification as flexible sheets almost wholly of plastic, made in imitation of patent leather.[3]


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: 73-5-01298
  12. Verrazzano Trading Corp. v. United States (1972)

    Plaintiff has moved pursuant to rule 6.5(a)(ii) for an order to compel defendant to produce for inspection and copying work notes, written data, and computations pertaining to a laboratory report of the Bureau of Customs. Defendant opposes the motion, claiming that the materials are "privileged from disclosure" by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. (1970 ed.) § 552,[1] and the customs regulations; and that in order to prevail, plaintiff must show a "compelling necessity" for production [...]

    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.R.D. 72-19 Nos. 70/16253-12995-69
  13. Novelty Imports, Inc. v. United States (1972)

    (2) vacating the decree nisi, dated October 22, 1971, and an order, also dated October 22, 1971, which dismissed the civil action as to entries numbered 1110266 and 751722, and dismissing the entire civil action, or, should both motions be denied


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.R.D. 72-7 Court No. 71-5-00180
  14. Bendix Mouldings, Inc. v. United States (1974)

    The merchandise at issue herein consists of wood moldings whose surface has been treated in various ways. The moldings were generally imported in 9-foot lengths and all possessed a rabbet (a recessed groove cut into the rear inner edge of the molding). The rabbet is designed to hold a picture or mirror within the confines of the frames. After importation these articles are cut and joined to form frames.


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C. D. 4576 Court No. 67/45707-22195-67
  15. Nomura (America) Corp. v. United States (1969)

    The two protests in this case, consolidated for purposes of trial, pertain to merchandise imported from Japan and described on the invoices as "Wader Boots—Chest High." It is made of rubber and consists of steel-shanked rubber boots at the bottom with attached rubber leggings rising to a high waist or chest.


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.D. 3820 Protest Nos. 65/25517-20538-63 and 65/25516-20539-63
  16. Yoshida International, Inc. v. United States (1974)

    Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, New York City (Schwartz & Lidstrom, New York City, and Glad, Tuttle & White, San Francisco, Cal., associate counsel; J. Bradley Colburn, Earl R. Lidstrom, Rufus E. Jarman, Jr. and David O. Elliott, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.D. 4550 Court No. 72-2-00314
  17. United China & Glass Co. v. United States (1968)

    Plaintiff in this protest has abandoned all claims save the claim that merchandise, imported from Hong Kong, described in the entry invoice as "Glass Water Balls", assessed at 50 per centum ad valorem, under TSUS item 546.51, is properly dutiable at 28 per centum ad valorem, under TSUS item 748.20. Those competing tariff item classifications provide as follows:


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.D. 3637 Protest No. 65/22597-17629
  18. Erie Navigation Co. v. United States (1979)

    Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., David M. Cohen, Branch Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Joseph I. Liebman, Atty. in Charge, Field Office for Customs Litigation, New York City (Jerry P. Wiskin, New York City, at the trial; William F. Atkin, Glenn E. Harris and Jerry P. Wiskin, New York City, on the briefs), for defendant.


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.D. 4820 Court No. 76-5-01081
  19. SCM Corp. v. United States (1979)

    Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C. (David M. Cohen, Washington, D. C., Branch Director, Federal Programs Branch, Sheila N. Ziff, New York City, trial atty.), for defendant.


    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.R.D. 79-11 Court No. 77-4-00553
  20. Midwood Industries, Inc. v. United States (1970)

    The merchandise of these protests, consolidated for trial, consists of steel forgings exported from West Germany, England, and Italy, and entered at the port of New York. Delivery of the merchandise to the plaintiff-importer was refused by the regional commissioner of customs upon entry in accordance with provisions of 19 U.S.C.A., section 1304 (a) relating to markings as to country of origin on the merchandise. Plaintiff protests against the action of the regional commissioner of customs [...]

    Court: United States Customs Court Docket: C.D. 4026 Protest Nos. 68/44059-26779-68, etc

1 of 9 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5