Case Name: Delta Novelty Co., Inc., et al. v. United States; Corham Artificial Flower Co. v. United States; Deldan Design, Inc. v. United States; Marcus Display Industries, Inc. v. United States; Regency Flowers, Inc., et al. v. United States; Colorado Trading Co. v. United States; City Products Corp. v. United States; Karl Schroff & Assoc., Inc. v. United States; Reliance Trading Corp. of Illinois et al. v. United States
Court: United States Customs Court
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1969-04-28
Citations: 62 Cust. Ct. 1085
Docket Number: No. P69/121; protests 67/15902, etc. (New York); No. P69/122; protests 67/20260, etc. (New York); No. P 69/123; protests 67/30476, etc. (New York); No. P69/124; protests 67/34393, etc. (Boston); No. P69/125; protests 67/36345, etc. (New York); Po. P69/126; protests 67/55000, etc. (Los Angeles); No. P69/127; protests 67/83206 and 67/6396 (Philadelphia); No. P69/128; protests 67/86015-6153, etc. (Chicago); No. P69/129; protests 68/33639-7892, etc. (Chicago)
Parties: Delta Novelty Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, Corham Artificial Flower Co. v. United States, Deldan Design, Inc. v. United States, Marcus Display Industries, Inc. v. United States, Regency Flowers, Inc., et al. v. United States, Colorado Trading Co. v. United States, City Products Corp. v. United States, Karl Schroff & Assoc., Inc. v. United States, Reliance Trading Corp. of Illinois et al. v. United States,
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Customs Court Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 1085–1085

Head Matter:
Before the First Division,
April 28, 1969
No. P69/121.
protests 67/15902, etc. (New York).
No. P69/122.
protests 67/20260, etc. (New York).
No. P 69/123.
protests 67/30476, etc. (New York).
No. P69/124.
protests 67/34393, etc. (Boston).
No. P69/125.
protests 67/36345, etc. (New York).
Po. P69/126.
protests 67/55000, etc. (Los Angeles).
No. P69/127.
protests 67/83206 and 67/6396 (Philadelphia).
No. P69/128.
protests 67/86015-6153, etc. (Chicago).
No. P69/129.
protests 68/33639-7892, etc. (Chicago).
Delta Novelty Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, Corham Artificial Flower Co. v. United States, Deldan Design, Inc. v. United States, Marcus Display Industries, Inc. v. United States, Regency Flowers, Inc., et al. v. United States, Colorado Trading Co. v. United States, City Products Corp. v. United States, Karl Schroff & Assoc., Inc. v. United States, Reliance Trading Corp. of Illinois et al. v. United States,

Opinion:
WatsoN, J.
In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of artificial flowers, trees, foliage, fruits, vegetables, grasses, or grains, and articles made of the foregoing, in chief value of plastic, assembled in the same manner as the merchandise the subject of Armbee (Corporation et al. v. United States (60 Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 3278) and Zunold Trading Corporation et al. v. United States (60 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 3279), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.