Protests 102840-K of Mimosa American Corp.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Beauti-Vue Products Co. v. United States (United States Customs Court 1967)
- Prepac, Inc. v. United States (United States Customs Court 1959)
- J. Jolles Studios, Inc. v. United States (United States Customs Court 1952)
- Quong Hing v. United States (United States Customs Court 1950)
- J. Jolles Studios, Inc. v. United States (United States Customs Court 1950)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
It was agreed that from an analysis of merchandise analyzed by a Government chemist, synthetic resin was the component of chief value; that the articles in question are not laminated, nor made of laminated products; and that the synthetic resin did not act as a binding agent. Upon the agreed facts, it was held that the merchandise was excluded from classification under paragraph 1539 (b), following Lee & Schiffer, Inc. v. United States (12 Cust. Ct. 183, C. D. 850). There being no provision in the act for manufactures composed wholly or in chief value of synthetic resin, the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558, was sustained: (Rolls Razor, Inc. v. United States, 6 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 480, cited.)
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.