Hatton v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Hatton v. United States

23 Cust. Ct. 214, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1084

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedNovember 29, 1949

DocketNo. 53747; protests 759334-G, etc. (Los Angeles)

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Cust. Ct. 214 (Hatton 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

Hatton v. United States, 23 Cust. Ct. 214, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1084 (cusc 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

When the case was called for trial counsel for the plaintiffs offered in evidence the special report of the appraiser in protests 759334-G, 759335-G, and 845923-G, and a Government chemist’s report in protest 60688-K. On each of the reports the merchandise was described as “kelp meal.” It was held that the merchandise in question consists of kelp meal, a form of kelp, and following Centennial Flouring Mills Co. et al. v. United States (29 C. C. P. A. 264, C. A. D. 200), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1705 was sustained.

Cole, J., concurring.

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

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

When the case was called for trial counsel for the plaintiffs offered in evidence the special report of the appraiser in protests 759334-G, 759335-G, and 845923-G, and a Government chemist’s report in protest 60688-K. On each of the reports the merchandise was described as “kelp meal.” It was held that the merchandise in question consists of kelp meal, a form of kelp, and following Centennial Flouring Mills Co. et al. v. United States (29 C. C. P. A. 264, C. A. D. 200), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1705 was sustained.

Cole, J., concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Cust. Ct. 214, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatton-v-united-states-cusc-1949.