Protest 933139-G of Keene

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 933139-G of Keene

1 Cust. Ct. 491

United States Customs Court·Decided November 17, 1938·No. No. 39884·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared that the bales in which the goods were packed were marked “Seotl’d” and that the rags themselves are not capable of being marked. It was found that this marking suggests Scotland to all and that it does something more than hint at the name of the acceptable marking prescribed in the customs regulations. Lorillard v. United States (24 C. C. P. A. 90, T. D. 48412), Abstracts 37656, 38243, 36598, T. D. 47007, American Burtonizing Co. v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 652, T. D. 41489), and Vandegrift v. United States (id. 328, T. D. 41235) cited. The protest was therefore sustained^

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

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared that the bales in which the goods were packed were marked “Seotl’d” and that the rags themselves are not capable of being marked. It was found that this marking suggests Scotland to all and that it does something more than hint at the name of the acceptable marking prescribed in the customs regulations. Lorillard v. United States (24 C. C. P. A. 90, T. D. 48412), Abstracts 37656, 38243, 36598, T. D. 47007, American Burtonizing Co. v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 652, T. D. 41489), and Vandegrift v. United States (id. 328, T. D. 41235) cited. The protest was therefore sustained^

Protest 933139-G of Keene, 1 Cust. Ct. 491 (cusc 1938).

Pincite

1 Cust. Ct. 491 (Protest 933139-G of Keene) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related