Protest 954879-G/87970 of American Jewelers Bureau, Inc.

8 Cust. Ct. 533
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMay 27, 1942
DocketNo. 47233
StatusPublished

This text of 8 Cust. Ct. 533 (Protest 954879-G/87970 of American Jewelers Bureau, Inc.) 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 954879-G/87970 of American Jewelers Bureau, Inc., 8 Cust. Ct. 533 (cusc 1942).

Opinion

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

A sample of the merchandise admitted in evidence (exhibit 1) consists of three strands of cultured pearls, without a clasp, converging on a large central pearl. The president of the importing corporation testified that pearls imported in strands by his firm are restrung into necklaces and bracelets and that the loose ones are used as settings in rings and earrings in cultured pearl jewelry; that the merchandise in question is unfit for use in its imported condition for the reason that where the necklace joins in the center it is on a temporary cord tied with a little knot and would last only a short time; that the imported merchandise was restrung on strong silk cords and fitted with clasps to put them in salable condition as necklaces. On .cross-examination this witness testified that the three strings .are merely tied without going through the large pearl in the center, which is essential to the production of a piece of jewelry. A sample of the imported pearls as finally assembled as a necklace was produced by the witness and admitted as illustrative exhibit A. The examiner of merchandise testified on behalf of the defendant but his testimony was held not sufficient to rebut that introduced by the plaintiff. Hecht Pearl Co. v. United States (18 C. C. P. A. 171, T. D. 44375), cited by counsel for defendant, distinguished. The court found that the pearls in question come within the classification of the case of United States v. Lamport Export Co. (15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 394, T. D. 42569). Following the reasoning applied in that case, and cases therein cited, the merchandise in question was held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 as claimed.

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

Related

United States v. Lamport Export Co.
15 Ct. Cust. 394 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Cust. Ct. 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-954879-g87970-of-american-jewelers-bureau-inc-cusc-1942.