Protests 917421-G of Emy

3 Cust. Ct. 437
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedOctober 13, 1939
DocketNo. 42416
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 3 Cust. Ct. 437 (Protests 917421-G of Emy) 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 917421-G of Emy, 3 Cust. Ct. 437 (cusc 1939).

Opinion

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

The evidence showed that the merchandise consists of oil extracted from the livers of swordfish and tuna fish by grinding, adding a caustic solution, agitating the mass and allowing it to remain overnight, adding hot water, and centrifuging the mixture which mechanically separates the oil, water, and solids from one another. They are blended with other fish liver oils, put into capsules, and sold for medicinal use. The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was sustained on the authority of Andrews v. United States (T. D. 49190).

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

Related

Alaska Fish Oil Extractors, Inc. v. United States
44 Cust. Ct. 231 (U.S. Customs Court, 1960)
Geo. S. Bush & Co. v. United States
15 Cust. Ct. 83 (U.S. Customs Court, 1945)
Atlantic Coast Fisheries Corp. v. United States
6 Cust. Ct. 415 (U.S. Customs Court, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Cust. Ct. 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protests-917421-g-of-emy-cusc-1939.