Protests 902403-G of Thomas

2 Cust. Ct. 521
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJanuary 5, 1939
DocketNo. 40322
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Cust. Ct. 521 (Protests 902403-G of Thomas) 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 902403-G of Thomas, 2 Cust. Ct. 521 (cusc 1939).

Opinion

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of grinding stones similar to those the subject of Pearson, Peppard & Co. v. United [522]*522States (T. D. 47136). It is contended that the dictionary definitions for grindstones are broad enough to include grinding stones and that Congress did not intend to exclude all stones used or suitable for grinding purposes that were not covered by a single definition of a stone of limited use. It was found that the evidence is clear that the stones in question do not come within the classification of “a solid wheel of stone, mounted on a spindle and turned by a winch handle, by a treadle, or by machinery.” British American Tobacco Co. v. United States (17 C. C. P. A. 374, T. D. 43812), United States v. Baruch (223 U. S. 191), and United States v. Lilly (14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 332, T. D. 41970) cited. The grindstones in question were held not to come within the definition as announced by the courts. The protests were therefore overruled.

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

Related

United States v. Baruch
223 U.S. 191 (Supreme Court, 1912)
United States v. Lilly & Co.
14 Ct. Cust. 332 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Cust. Ct. 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protests-902403-g-of-thomas-cusc-1939.