L. Tobert Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

L. Tobert Co. v. United States

28 Cust. Ct. 456, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 421

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedApril 24, 1952

DocketNo. 56581; protest 153767-K (New York)

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 28 Cust. Ct. 456 (L. Tobert Co. 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

L. Tobert Co. v. United States, 28 Cust. Ct. 456, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 421 (cusc 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It must be presumed that the collector exhausted consideration of said paragraph 339, supra, including its modified form, and was satisfied that the subject articles are not only household utensils but that they are illuminating articles as well, within the meaning of said paragraph when con[457]*457sidered in its entirety. United States v. Lilly & Co. and Parke, Davis & Co. (14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 332, T. D. 41970). It was necessary, therefore, for the plaintiffs to establish not only that the decision of the collector was erroneous but that the plaintiffs’ claimed classification is correct. United States v. Gardel Industries (33 C. C. P. A. 118, C. A. D. 325).

Plaintiffs failed to establish by competent evidence that the articles are not chiefly used for illuminating purposes. The presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification stands undisturbed. The protest was overruled.

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

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It must be presumed that the collector exhausted consideration of said paragraph 339, supra, including its modified form, and was satisfied that the subject articles are not only household utensils but that they are illuminating articles as well, within the meaning of said paragraph when con[457]*457sidered in its entirety. United States v. Lilly & Co. and Parke, Davis & Co. (14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 332, T. D. 41970). It was necessary, therefore, for the plaintiffs to establish not only that the decision of the collector was erroneous but that the plaintiffs’ claimed classification is correct. United States v. Gardel Industries (33 C. C. P. A. 118, C. A. D. 325).

Plaintiffs failed to establish by competent evidence that the articles are not chiefly used for illuminating purposes. The presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification stands undisturbed. The protest was overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Cust. Ct. 456, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-tobert-co-v-united-states-cusc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack