Protest 909111-G/11059 of Sazerac Co.

15 Cust. Ct. 248
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedAugust 8, 1945
DocketNo. 50405
StatusPublished

This text of 15 Cust. Ct. 248 (Protest 909111-G/11059 of Sazerac 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 909111-G/11059 of Sazerac Co., 15 Cust. Ct. 248 (cusc 1945).

Opinion

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The only evidence produced consisted of the official papers including a report of the Government chemist as to the alcoholic content of the commodity and the testimony of one witness for. the Government. Plaintiff did not specify which of the commodities enumerated under paragraph 802 in said T. D. 48316 he claims this merchandise to be, but in his brief claims it falls under the specific provision for liqueurs, or, in the alternative, for brandy. Government- counsel contended that the protest should be dismissed as defective, apparently because of lack of specificity. The court, being of the opinion that the invoice description of the instant commodity and the mention of the commodity as “maraschino” is sufficient to direct the paind of the collector to the claim that the commodity is a liqueur, held the protest to be sufficient. The experience of the witness produced on behalf of the Government did not qualify him as an expert on imported cordials or liqueurs, and the chemist’s report was of little value. However, in the answer to protest the appraiser stated that the merchandise was “found to be maraschino, an unsweetened compound.” Plaintiff quoted dictionary definitions to support the claim that maraschino is a liqueur. (See Batjer & Co. et al. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 60, T. D. 38726.) Inasmuch as the appraiser reported the commodity to be maraschino, unsweetened, and the definitions of “maraschino” describe same as a liqueur, it was held that the merchandise was properly dutiable at $2.50 per proof gallon, as claimed.

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

Related

Batjer & Co. v. United States
11 Ct. Cust. 60 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Cust. Ct. 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-909111-g11059-of-sazerac-co-cusc-1945.