Pioneer Merchandise Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Pioneer Merchandise Co. v. United States

24 Cust. Ct. 427, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1872

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedApril 17, 1950

DocketNo. 54247; protest 142412-K (Bridgeport)

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Cust. Ct. 427 (Pioneer Merchandise 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

Pioneer Merchandise Co. v. United States, 24 Cust. Ct. 427, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1872 (cusc 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

When the case was called for trial, two witnesses appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. From the testimony presented the court found that chief use of the articles in controversy other than as household utensils was not established. (I. W. Rice & Co. v. United States, 24 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 114, T. D. 48415) followed. From a consideration of all the facts presented and from a visual examination of the exhibits before the court, it was held that the evidence introduced by the plaintiff was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness which attached to the collector’s classification (United States v. I. Magnin & Co., Inc., 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 77, T. D. 46394, and United States v. Marshall Field & Co., 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 1, T. D. 43309) cited. See M. Pressner & Co. v. United States, Abstract 54246, decided concurrently herewith, wherein the claim of the importer therein that merchandise similar in character to the pencil sharpeners here in controversy was dutiable as household utensils under paragraph 339 was sustained. Note also M. Pressner & Co. v. United States, Abstract 41633. In the circumstances of the present case, it was held that plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proof. The first claim in the protest was therefore overruled. The alternative claim in the protest, having been virtually abandoned, was also overruled.

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

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

When the case was called for trial, two witnesses appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. From the testimony presented the court found that chief use of the articles in controversy other than as household utensils was not established. (I. W. Rice & Co. v. United States, 24 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 114, T. D. 48415) followed. From a consideration of all the facts presented and from a visual examination of the exhibits before the court, it was held that the evidence introduced by the plaintiff was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness which attached to the collector’s classification (United States v. I. Magnin & Co., Inc., 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 77, T. D. 46394, and United States v. Marshall Field & Co., 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 1, T. D. 43309) cited. See M. Pressner & Co. v. United States, Abstract 54246, decided concurrently herewith, wherein the claim of the importer therein that merchandise similar in character to the pencil sharpeners here in controversy was dutiable as household utensils under paragraph 339 was sustained. Note also M. Pressner & Co. v. United States, Abstract 41633. In the circumstances of the present case, it was held that plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proof. The first claim in the protest was therefore overruled. The alternative claim in the protest, having been virtually abandoned, was also overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Cust. Ct. 427, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pioneer-merchandise-co-v-united-states-cusc-1950.