Protests 66011-K of International Paper Sales Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protests 66011-K of International Paper Sales Co.

17 Cust. Ct. 221

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedNovember 20, 1946

DocketNo. 51426

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Cust. Ct. 221 (Protests 66011-K of International Paper Sales 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

Protests 66011-K of International Paper Sales Co., 17 Cust. Ct. 221 (cusc 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Plaintiffs state that the maximum thickness of the paper under consideration, after deducting the 5 percent tolerance permitted by T. D. 45418 (4), results in a thickness of 56/10000ths of an inch in excess of .004 of an inch prescribed in T. D. 44317, and argue that this trifling difference should be disregarded under the principle de minimus non curat lex. Plaintiffs rely [222]*222on Abstract 47893, but in the present instance, apart from three laboratory reports received in evidence, no showing whatever was made that the paper of the thickness here in question is of the kind and class known and chiefly used as newsprint paper at the time of the enactment of the Tariff Act of 1930. Nor have the plaintiffs furnished any basis for holding the excess thickness of the paper as trifling and negligible under the principle de minimus non curat lex. The protests were overruled for lack of proof, following United States v. Tower & Sons (26 C. C. P. A. 1, T. D. 49534).

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

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Plaintiffs state that the maximum thickness of the paper under consideration, after deducting the 5 percent tolerance permitted by T. D. 45418 (4), results in a thickness of 56/10000ths of an inch in excess of .004 of an inch prescribed in T. D. 44317, and argue that this trifling difference should be disregarded under the principle de minimus non curat lex. Plaintiffs rely [222]*222on Abstract 47893, but in the present instance, apart from three laboratory reports received in evidence, no showing whatever was made that the paper of the thickness here in question is of the kind and class known and chiefly used as newsprint paper at the time of the enactment of the Tariff Act of 1930. Nor have the plaintiffs furnished any basis for holding the excess thickness of the paper as trifling and negligible under the principle de minimus non curat lex. The protests were overruled for lack of proof, following United States v. Tower & Sons (26 C. C. P. A. 1, T. D. 49534).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Cust. Ct. 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protests-66011-k-of-international-paper-sales-co-cusc-1946.