J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. v. The United States

Customs and Patent Appeals

J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. v. The United States

436 F.2d 506, 58 C.C.P.A. 91, 1971 CCPA LEXIS 427

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·Decided February 4, 1971·No. 5372, C.A.D. 1009·Published

Opinion

Lane, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The importer appeals from the decision and judgment of the United States Customs Court, First Division, which overruled its protest and sustained the classification of certain “meter irises” under item 722.32 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States as other parts for motion picture cameras. J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 536, C.D. 3822 (1969). The court below in a thorough opinion by Judge Maletz reviewed the legislative intent relative to the provisions here involved and we find it unnecessary to repeat since we conclude that the decision and judgment below are correct.

On consideration of the transcript of record, the briefs, the arguments on appeal, and our recent decisions in American Express Com *92 pany. v. United States, 57 CCPA 100, C.A.D. 985 (decided May 28, 1970) and Costa International Corp. v. United States, 58 CCPA 48, C.A.D. 1003 (decided December 10, 1970), both cases cited by the ■appellant, we find no error in the decision of the United States 'Customs Court, reported supra.

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

Lane, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The importer appeals from the decision and judgment of the United States Customs Court, First Division, which overruled its protest and sustained the classification of certain “meter irises” under item 722.32 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States as other parts for motion picture cameras. J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 536, C.D. 3822 (1969). The court below in a thorough opinion by Judge Maletz reviewed the legislative intent relative to the provisions here involved and we find it unnecessary to repeat since we conclude that the decision and judgment below are correct.

On consideration of the transcript of record, the briefs, the arguments on appeal, and our recent decisions in American Express Com *92 pany. v. United States, 57 CCPA 100, C.A.D. 985 (decided May 28, 1970) and Costa International Corp. v. United States, 58 CCPA 48, C.A.D. 1003 (decided December 10, 1970), both cases cited by the ■appellant, we find no error in the decision of the United States 'Customs Court, reported supra.

J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. v. The United States, 436 F.2d 506, 58 C.C.P.A. 91, 1971 CCPA LEXIS 427 (ccpa 1971).

Pincite

436 F.2d 506 (J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. v. The United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related