Protest 966661-G of Kwong Kee Jan

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 966661-G of Kwong Kee Jan

9 Cust. Ct. 455

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedDecember 3, 1942

DocketNo. 47768

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Cust. Ct. 455 (Protest 966661-G of Kwong Kee Jan) 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 966661-G of Kwong Kee Jan, 9 Cust. Ct. 455 (cusc 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated “that the merchandise consists of whole ducks, packed in tins covered with uncooked milled rice and excelsior; and that the rice being impregnated with oil is not used.” Wa Chong Co. v. United States (61 Treas. Dec. 1118, T. D. 45695), Von Bremen, Asche v. United States (57 Treas. Dec. 679, T. D. 44000), and Peabody v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls 80, T. D. 40935), cited by counsel for plaintiff, were held not applicable to the case at bar as [456]*456the collector did not assess duty on the rice at the rate applicable to the ducks but at the rate of duty applicable to rice. The record did not show that the rice is of no value. As rice is enumerated in paragraph 727, the claim that it is a nonenumerated manufactured article was found to have no merit. On the record presented, the protest was overruled.

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

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated “that the merchandise consists of whole ducks, packed in tins covered with uncooked milled rice and excelsior; and that the rice being impregnated with oil is not used.” Wa Chong Co. v. United States (61 Treas. Dec. 1118, T. D. 45695), Von Bremen, Asche v. United States (57 Treas. Dec. 679, T. D. 44000), and Peabody v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls 80, T. D. 40935), cited by counsel for plaintiff, were held not applicable to the case at bar as [456]*456the collector did not assess duty on the rice at the rate applicable to the ducks but at the rate of duty applicable to rice. The record did not show that the rice is of no value. As rice is enumerated in paragraph 727, the claim that it is a nonenumerated manufactured article was found to have no merit. On the record presented, the protest was overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Cust. Ct. 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-966661-g-of-kwong-kee-jan-cusc-1942.