Protest 10105-K of New York Mdse. Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 10105-K of New York Mdse. Co.

9 Cust. Ct. 460

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedDecember 11, 1942

DocketNo. 47792

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Cust. Ct. 460 (Protest 10105-K of New York Mdse. Co.) 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

Protest 10105-K of New York Mdse. Co., 9 Cust. Ct. 460 (cusc 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

[461]*461Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was observed that the plaintiff did not invoke any particular provision in said paragraph 353, but apparently that covering “electrical element or device” was intended. No sample was introduced in evidence. As stated in Coxhead Corp. v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 96, T. D. 47080), “we cannot read out of the- provision the term ‘having as an essential feature’ and we must give it some effect,” but the court observed that it was not easy so to do in this ease as there is no proof of essentiality. The testimony of the only witness was held not 'sufficient to justify a holding that the irons in question are not chiefly used in the home. The protest was therefore overruled.

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

[461]*461Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was observed that the plaintiff did not invoke any particular provision in said paragraph 353, but apparently that covering “electrical element or device” was intended. No sample was introduced in evidence. As stated in Coxhead Corp. v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 96, T. D. 47080), “we cannot read out of the- provision the term ‘having as an essential feature’ and we must give it some effect,” but the court observed that it was not easy so to do in this ease as there is no proof of essentiality. The testimony of the only witness was held not 'sufficient to justify a holding that the irons in question are not chiefly used in the home. The protest was therefore overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Cust. Ct. 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-10105-k-of-new-york-mdse-co-cusc-1942.