Case: Hercules Div. American Machine & Foundry Co. v. United States; Margro Trading Corporation v. United States; Continental Diesel Corp. et al. v. United States; Seedman International Corp. et al v. United States; Heidemann Industries, Inc. v. United States; Metasco, Inc. v. United States; Metasco, Inc. v. United States; Metasco, Inc. v. United States; Raleigh Industries of America, Inc. v. United States; Raleigh Industries of America, Inc. v. United States
Abbreviation: Hercules Div. American Machine & Foundry Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1968-08-30
Docket Number: No. P68/365; protest 60/7534 (Houston); No. P68/366; protests 60/13096, etc. (New York); No. P68/367; protests 60/26170, etc. (New York); No. P68/368; protests 61/1794, etc. (New York); No. P68/369; protest 61/2046 (Baltimore); No. P68/370; protest 61/4703 (Philadelphia); No. P68/371; protest 61/5005 (Tampa); No. P68/372; protest 61/5006 (Tampa); No. P68/373; protest 62/11422-12912 (Chicago); No. P68/374; protest 62/18599-13062 (Chicago)
Citation: 61 Cust. Ct. 643
Volume: 61
Reporter: United States Customs Court Reports
Court: United States Customs Court
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Hercules Div. American Machine & Foundry Co. v. United States, Margro Trading Corporation v. United States, Continental Diesel Corp. et al. v. United States, Seedman International Corp. et al v. United States, Heidemann Industries, Inc. v. United States, Metasco, Inc. v. United States, Metasco, Inc. v. United States, Metasco, Inc. v. United States, Raleigh Industries of America, Inc. v. United States, Raleigh Industries of America, Inc. v. United States,
Judges: 
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
No. P68/365.
protest 60/7534 (Houston).
No. P68/366.
protests 60/13096, etc. (New York).
No. P68/367.
protests 60/26170, etc. (New York).
No. P68/368.
protests 61/1794, etc. (New York).
No. P68/369.
protest 61/2046 (Baltimore).
Hercules Div. American Machine & Foundry Co. v. United States, Margro Trading Corporation v. United States, Continental Diesel Corp. et al. v. United States, Seedman International Corp. et al v. United States, Heidemann Industries, Inc. v. United States, Metasco, Inc. v. United States, Metasco, Inc. v. United States, Metasco, Inc. v. United States, Raleigh Industries of America, Inc. v. United States, Raleigh Industries of America, Inc. v. United States,
No. P68/370.
protest 61/4703 (Philadelphia).
No. P68/371.
protest 61/5005 (Tampa).
No. P68/372.
protest 61/5006 (Tampa).
No. P68/373.
protest 62/11422-12912 (Chicago).
No. P68/374.
protest 62/18599-13062 (Chicago).

Opinion:
Beckworth, J.
In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of bicycles, with or without tires having wheels in diameter (measured to the outer circumference of the tire) over 25 inches, weighing less than 36 pounds complete without accessories, and not designed for use with tires having a cross-sectional diameter exceeding 1% inches and that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of United States v. Schmidt Pritchard & Co., Mangano Cyeles Co. (47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.