Protest 107103-K of I. F. Schnier & Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 107103-K of I. F. Schnier & Co.

15 Cust. Ct. 294

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedOctober 17, 1945

DocketNo. 50588

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 Cust. Ct. 294 (Protest 107103-K of I. F. Schnier & 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 107103-K of I. F. Schnier & Co., 15 Cust. Ct. 294 (cusc 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial counsel agreed that the imported merchandise was not decorated, colored, waxed, lacquered, enameled, lithographed, electroplated, or embossed in color. A sample of the wire hood and a metal disk (which did not constitute any part of this importation), used in conjunction with the wire hood, were admitted in evidence. Plaintiff’s witness testified that the wire hood is used to secure and hold the, champagne cork, which actually seals the bottle, and that without the security, the compression from inside the bottle would force out the cork. The record showed that the wire hoods cannot be used alone because the compression exerted against the cork from within the bottle would cause the wire in the hoods to cut through the cork. To avoid this and to make the wire hoods of service in bottling champagne, a metal disk is placed between the cork and the wire hood. Plaintiff contended that the issue in this case is controlled by Cribari v. United States (1 Cust. Ct. 19, C. D. 6). Since the facts m the two cases distinguish the one from the other it was held that the cited authority has no application here. The court was of the opinion that the most that could be said of the wire hoods is that they are parts of bottle caps, and since there is no provision for parts of bottle caps contained in paragraph 390, as amended, the instant wire hoods cannot find classification thereunder. The protest was therefore overruled.

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

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial counsel agreed that the imported merchandise was not decorated, colored, waxed, lacquered, enameled, lithographed, electroplated, or embossed in color. A sample of the wire hood and a metal disk (which did not constitute any part of this importation), used in conjunction with the wire hood, were admitted in evidence. Plaintiff’s witness testified that the wire hood is used to secure and hold the, champagne cork, which actually seals the bottle, and that without the security, the compression from inside the bottle would force out the cork. The record showed that the wire hoods cannot be used alone because the compression exerted against the cork from within the bottle would cause the wire in the hoods to cut through the cork. To avoid this and to make the wire hoods of service in bottling champagne, a metal disk is placed between the cork and the wire hood. Plaintiff contended that the issue in this case is controlled by Cribari v. United States (1 Cust. Ct. 19, C. D. 6). Since the facts m the two cases distinguish the one from the other it was held that the cited authority has no application here. The court was of the opinion that the most that could be said of the wire hoods is that they are parts of bottle caps, and since there is no provision for parts of bottle caps contained in paragraph 390, as amended, the instant wire hoods cannot find classification thereunder. The protest was therefore overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Cust. Ct. 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-107103-k-of-i-f-schnier-co-cusc-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack