Protest 15134-K of Geo. S. Bush & Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 15134-K of Geo. S. Bush & Co.

10 Cust. Ct. 402

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedFebruary 20, 1943

DocketNo. 48040

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Cust. Ct. 402 (Protest 15134-K of Geo. S. Bush & 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 15134-K of Geo. S. Bush & Co., 10 Cust. Ct. 402 (cusc 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cole, J.

A sample of the fillet of cod was received in evidence but no sample was produced of the haddock. The “smoke-house man” of the importing concern testified on behalf of the importer and one witness was produced by the defendant; but the testimony of neither was very impressive, and it was stated by the court that the most favorable interpretation of the testimony offered by the plaintiff does not begin to meet the burden imposed upon it, and that to accept such a narrow view that because the merchandise was artificially smoked it does not come within the meaning of the word “smoked” in the tariff act would violate all reason in applying commonly accepted rules governing the interpretation of statutes. Following United States v. Albrecht (27 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 71) the protest was overruled and the decision of the collector affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Cole, J.

A sample of the fillet of cod was received in evidence but no sample was produced of the haddock. The “smoke-house man” of the importing concern testified on behalf of the importer and one witness was produced by the defendant; but the testimony of neither was very impressive, and it was stated by the court that the most favorable interpretation of the testimony offered by the plaintiff does not begin to meet the burden imposed upon it, and that to accept such a narrow view that because the merchandise was artificially smoked it does not come within the meaning of the word “smoked” in the tariff act would violate all reason in applying commonly accepted rules governing the interpretation of statutes. Following United States v. Albrecht (27 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 71) the protest was overruled and the decision of the collector affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Cust. Ct. 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-15134-k-of-geo-s-bush-co-cusc-1943.