Protest 4845-K of Meyer

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 4845-K of Meyer

8 Cust. Ct. 464

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1942

DocketNo. 46935

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Cust. Ct. 464 (Protest 4845-K of Meyer) 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 4845-K of Meyer, 8 Cust. Ct. 464 (cusc 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Walker, J.

The only witness called by the plaintiff testified he had been manager of the importer’s business in the manufacture of horse-racing equipment for 14 years and that the imported saddletrees were used exclusively in the manufacture of Newmarket saddles and are always made in part of pigskin. Some testimony was taken as to the value of the saddles but the court held it was their view that it was unnecessary to determine the question of value since plaintiff failed to establish any value except that in the United States, which is over ■$40 each, and since it clearly appeared that the saddletrees in issue are parts of saddles, which are specially provided for, viz, pigskin saddles. Hence they are excluded from the provision for “saddles * * * not specially provided for, parts thereof.” On the record presented the protest was overruled.

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

Opinion by

Walker, J.

The only witness called by the plaintiff testified he had been manager of the importer’s business in the manufacture of horse-racing equipment for 14 years and that the imported saddletrees were used exclusively in the manufacture of Newmarket saddles and are always made in part of pigskin. Some testimony was taken as to the value of the saddles but the court held it was their view that it was unnecessary to determine the question of value since plaintiff failed to establish any value except that in the United States, which is over ■$40 each, and since it clearly appeared that the saddletrees in issue are parts of saddles, which are specially provided for, viz, pigskin saddles. Hence they are excluded from the provision for “saddles * * * not specially provided for, parts thereof.” On the record presented the protest was overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Cust. Ct. 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-4845-k-of-meyer-cusc-1942.