Protests 636-K of IStrauss

U.S. Customs Court

Protests 636-K of IStrauss

17 Cust. Ct. 224

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedNovember 27, 1946

DocketNo. 51433

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Cust. Ct. 224 (Protests 636-K of IStrauss) 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

Protests 636-K of IStrauss, 17 Cust. Ct. 224 (cusc 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The chemist who analyzed samples of two of the items in issue testified that they were composed solely of synthetic phenolic resin and that synthetic resin is not the chief binding agent. The manager of the plaintiff company testified that he examined all of the invoices covered by the protests and made a list (exhibit 1) of all the items similar to the two items as [225]*225to which the chemist testified. From the record presented, the court was of the opinion that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case, overcoming the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification. Although there is not a chemist’s analysis in the record of each of the items in question, the court was satisfied that all of the merchandise is in all material respects the same as the items on which an analysis had been made. Following Abstract 49907, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

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

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The chemist who analyzed samples of two of the items in issue testified that they were composed solely of synthetic phenolic resin and that synthetic resin is not the chief binding agent. The manager of the plaintiff company testified that he examined all of the invoices covered by the protests and made a list (exhibit 1) of all the items similar to the two items as [225]*225to which the chemist testified. From the record presented, the court was of the opinion that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case, overcoming the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification. Although there is not a chemist’s analysis in the record of each of the items in question, the court was satisfied that all of the merchandise is in all material respects the same as the items on which an analysis had been made. Following Abstract 49907, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Cust. Ct. 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protests-636-k-of-istrauss-cusc-1946.