Protest 958250-G of Western Novelty Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 958250-G of Western Novelty Co.

9 Cust. Ct. 429

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedOctober 9, 1942

DocketNo. 47632

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Cust. Ct. 429 (Protest 958250-G of Western Novelty 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 958250-G of Western Novelty Co., 9 Cust. Ct. 429 (cusc 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Walker, J.

The examiner who was called by the plaintiff identified two articles which were marked as exhibits. They were found to consist of imitation leis such as are commonly seen at carnivals and seashore resorts. Each consists of a strand of colored chip roping about 30 inches long with the ends tied securely together so that they may be hung around the neck. Prom the Tecord it was clear that the only effort expended in producing the articles is •cutting chip roping to length and tying the ends. The plaintiff claims this is not •a manufacturing process and that the merchandise has not reached the stage of becoming a manufacture of chip roping, citing Nootka v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 464, T. D. 47464). Defendant claims that the articles have acquired a new name, character, and use different from which the material, chip roping, originally had, and cited Ishimitsu v. United States (11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 186, T. D. 38963). The court was of the opinion that simple as the manufacturing effort applied to the articles may have been, it nevertheless changed the material into a new article, having new characteristics, including a new name and a new use, and cited United States v. General Dyestuff Corp. (29 C. C. P. A. 53, C. A. D. 170). In accordance therewith the protest was overruled.

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

Opinion by

Walker, J.

The examiner who was called by the plaintiff identified two articles which were marked as exhibits. They were found to consist of imitation leis such as are commonly seen at carnivals and seashore resorts. Each consists of a strand of colored chip roping about 30 inches long with the ends tied securely together so that they may be hung around the neck. Prom the Tecord it was clear that the only effort expended in producing the articles is •cutting chip roping to length and tying the ends. The plaintiff claims this is not •a manufacturing process and that the merchandise has not reached the stage of becoming a manufacture of chip roping, citing Nootka v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 464, T. D. 47464). Defendant claims that the articles have acquired a new name, character, and use different from which the material, chip roping, originally had, and cited Ishimitsu v. United States (11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 186, T. D. 38963). The court was of the opinion that simple as the manufacturing effort applied to the articles may have been, it nevertheless changed the material into a new article, having new characteristics, including a new name and a new use, and cited United States v. General Dyestuff Corp. (29 C. C. P. A. 53, C. A. D. 170). In accordance therewith the protest was overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Cust. Ct. 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-958250-g-of-western-novelty-co-cusc-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack