Cases from cite.case.law:

HARRIS v. QUINN,, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (U.S. 2014)

. . . . § 686.30. . . . of each personal assistant's work, that evaluation is also controlled by the customer. §§ 686.10(k), 686.30 . . . See § 686.30. . . .

J. HARRIS, v. QUINN,, 656 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2011)

. . . . §§ 686.10, 686.30. . . .

OPALACK, H. L. v. UNITED STATES, 5 Cl. Ct. 361 (Cl. Ct. 1984)

. . . contract by reason of default, he had issued a second decision asserting a claim in the amount of $942,-686.30 . . .

S. G. B. Co. v., 76 Cust. Ct. 274 (Cust. Ct. 1976)

. . . of Customs and Patent Appeals, in determining the meaning of the term “Christmas-tree lamps” in item 686.30 . . .

ESCO MANUFACTURING CO. J. Co. v. UNITED STATES, No., 530 F.2d 949 (C.C.P.A. 1976)

. . . of certain electric filament lamps, imported from Japan, as “Christmas-tree lamps” under TSUS item 686.30 . . . Below The imported C — 9 lamps were classified on entry as “Christmas-tree lamps,” under TSUS item 686.30 . . . In pleading erroneous classification under item 686.30, appellant alleged said item to be a use provision . . . Considering item 686.30 as if it were governed by General Interpretative Rule 10(e)(i), i. e., as it . . . Appellant’s Argument Appellant argues that item 686.30 can be considered from only one point of view, . . .

Co. J. Co. v., 63 C.C.P.A. 71 (C.C.P.A. 1976)

. . . of certain electric filament lamps, imported from Japan, as “Christmas-tree lamps” under TSUS item 686.30 . . . and infra-red lamps and photo-flash lamps; electric luminescent lamps; and arc lamps: Filament lamps: 686.30 . . . In pleading erroneous classification under item 686.30, appellant alleged said item to be a use provision . . . Considering item 686.30 as if it were governed by General Interpretive Rule 10(e)(i), i.e., as it would . . . Appellant’s Argument Appellate argues that item 686.30 can be considered from only one point of view, . . .

ESCO MANUFACTURING CO. J. Co. v. UNITED STATES, 393 F. Supp. 608 (Cust. Ct. 1975)

. . . from Japan via the port of Los Angeles in 1970 and 1971— were classified by the government under item 686.30 . . . any) combined; ******** Electric filament lamps and electric discharge lamps * * * Filament lamps: 686.30 . . . The parties also agree that if the government’s classification under item 686.30 is found to be erroneous . . . In this connection, plaintiff argues that the term Christmas tree as used in item 686.30 is limited to . . . Ill Lastly, it is to be noted that this court has indicated that item 686.30 covering “Christmas-tree . . .

Co. J. Co. v., 74 Cust. Ct. 57 (Cust. Ct. 1975)

. . . Japan via the port of Los Angeles in 1970 and 1971- — -were classified by the government under item 686.30 . . . The parties also agree that if the government’s classification under item 686.30 is found to be erroneous . . . In this connection, plaintiff argues that the term Christmas tree as used in item 686.30 is limited to . . . ; and (3) that item 686.30 is an eo nomine by use provision under which the common meaning of the term . . . Ill Lastly, it is to be noted that this court has indicated that item 686.30 covering “Christmas-tree . . .

MOBILITE, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 358 F. Supp. 267 (Cust. Ct. 1973)

. . . dutiable “with or without their bulbs”, such bulbs having been otherwise provided for eo nomine under item 686.30 . . .

v., 70 Cust. Ct. 359 (Cust. Ct. 1973)

. . . dutiable “with or without their bulbs”, such bulbs having been otherwise provided for eo nomine under item 686.30 . . .

DORSEY v. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 197 F.2d 468 (7th Cir. 1952)

. . . the statute of limitations to this note there was a balance owing of only $1.00 on the principal and $686.30 . . .