Protest 922941-G of Sprouse-Reitz Co.
This text of 11 Cust. Ct. 208 (Protest 922941-G of Sprouse-Reitz 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.
Opinion
Opinion by
As the rubber projections obviously are bristle like in their appearance and use, and are fastened to what may be called a back, viz, ■the sponge rubber portion of the article, it was the opinion of the court that the .article falls within the scope of Webster’s definition of “brush.” Several witnesses were called. One, the examiner, referred to it in his testimony as a flesh brush used by persons taking a bath or scrubbing their skin. The plaintiff failed to offer evidence tending to establish the chief use of the article. See United States v. Myers (24 C. C. P. A. 464, T. D. 48913). On the record presented, as the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled in all respects.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 Cust. Ct. 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-922941-g-of-sprouse-reitz-co-cusc-1943.