Protest 834259-G of S. & G. Gump Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 834259-G of S. & G. Gump Co.

8 Cust. Ct. 471

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedFebruary 25, 1942

DocketNo. 46980

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Cust. Ct. 471 (Protest 834259-G of S. & G. Gump 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 834259-G of S. & G. Gump Co., 8 Cust. Ct. 471 (cusc 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

[472]*472Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The manager of the oriental art department of the plaintiff testified, among other things, that he was familiar with the process of manufacture of such or similar merchandise as that under consideration and that he had seen it made in China. He then proceeded to describe the process. He further stated that he did not know what an ingrain rug was. A former examiner of merchandise for the Government also testified’in behalf of the plaintiff. He described the process of manufacture of an ingrain rug and said that the difference in appearance would be between the pile surface of an oriental rug and the woven surface of an ingrain rug. The court was of the opinion that the testimony offered by the plaintiff was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case and that a rug could be exactly what the evidence showed these rugs to be and still be properly classifiable under paragraph 1116 (a). The protest was therefore overruled.

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

[472]*472Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The manager of the oriental art department of the plaintiff testified, among other things, that he was familiar with the process of manufacture of such or similar merchandise as that under consideration and that he had seen it made in China. He then proceeded to describe the process. He further stated that he did not know what an ingrain rug was. A former examiner of merchandise for the Government also testified’in behalf of the plaintiff. He described the process of manufacture of an ingrain rug and said that the difference in appearance would be between the pile surface of an oriental rug and the woven surface of an ingrain rug. The court was of the opinion that the testimony offered by the plaintiff was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case and that a rug could be exactly what the evidence showed these rugs to be and still be properly classifiable under paragraph 1116 (a). The protest was therefore overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Cust. Ct. 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-834259-g-of-s-g-gump-co-cusc-1942.