Display Eximport, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Display Eximport, Inc. v. United States

20 Cust. Ct. 292, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 193

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedApril 2, 1948

DocketNo. 52244; protest 135258-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Cust. Ct. 292 (Display Eximport, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Display Eximport, Inc. v. United States, 20 Cust. Ct. 292, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 193 (cusc 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial there was received in evidence a photograph (exhibit 1) showing a set of five animals of various sizes. The import manager of the plaintiff corporation testified that these animals were used for display purposes and not as toys; that exhibit 1 was representative of the importation; and that the figures were made entirely of wood and painted. The court stated that in customs litigation the importer, in protesting the classification of the collector, assumes the burden of establishing not only that the classification was erroneous but also that his own contention is correct. (United States v. Gardel Industries, 33 C. C. P. A. 118, C. A. D. 325.) The plaintiff herein having failed to sustain its burden of proof, the protest was overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial there was received in evidence a photograph (exhibit 1) showing a set of five animals of various sizes. The import manager of the plaintiff corporation testified that these animals were used for display purposes and not as toys; that exhibit 1 was representative of the importation; and that the figures were made entirely of wood and painted. The court stated that in customs litigation the importer, in protesting the classification of the collector, assumes the burden of establishing not only that the classification was erroneous but also that his own contention is correct. (United States v. Gardel Industries, 33 C. C. P. A. 118, C. A. D. 325.) The plaintiff herein having failed to sustain its burden of proof, the protest was overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Cust. Ct. 292, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/display-eximport-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1948.