Protest 980012-G of Bullocks, Inc.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 980012-G of Bullocks, Inc.

8 Cust. Ct. 515

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 11, 1942

DocketNo. 47171

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Cust. Ct. 515 (Protest 980012-G of Bullocks, 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 980012-G of Bullocks, Inc., 8 Cust. Ct. 515 (cusc 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Walker, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise in question is "a preparation used as an application to the skin, such as a cosmetic or grease or toilet preparation, face cream,” nonalcoholic, and that it has a therapeutic property. The court was of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case in support of its claim under paragraph 5, as the provision for medicinal preparations is a designation by use, and the mere fact alone that the article has a therapeutic property does not entitle it to classification as medicinal preparations. United States v. Hillier’s (14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 216, T. D. 41706), United States v. Boker (6 id. 243, T. D. 35472), United States v. Cooper (22 C. C. P. A. 31, T. D. 47038), and Scharf v. United States (25 id. 32, T. D. 49038) cited. The claim under paragraph 34 was found obviously untenable as the article in question is evidently a mixture or preparation whereas paragraph 34 provides for natural and uncompounded drugs. The protest was therefore overruled.

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

Opinion by

Walker, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise in question is "a preparation used as an application to the skin, such as a cosmetic or grease or toilet preparation, face cream,” nonalcoholic, and that it has a therapeutic property. The court was of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case in support of its claim under paragraph 5, as the provision for medicinal preparations is a designation by use, and the mere fact alone that the article has a therapeutic property does not entitle it to classification as medicinal preparations. United States v. Hillier’s (14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 216, T. D. 41706), United States v. Boker (6 id. 243, T. D. 35472), United States v. Cooper (22 C. C. P. A. 31, T. D. 47038), and Scharf v. United States (25 id. 32, T. D. 49038) cited. The claim under paragraph 34 was found obviously untenable as the article in question is evidently a mixture or preparation whereas paragraph 34 provides for natural and uncompounded drugs. The protest was therefore overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Cust. Ct. 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-980012-g-of-bullocks-inc-cusc-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack