Protests 997435-G of Oxenberg Bros.

U.S. Customs Court

Protests 997435-G of Oxenberg Bros.

5 Cust. Ct. 345

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedOctober 8, 1940

DocketNo. 44476

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Cust. Ct. 345 (Protests 997435-G of Oxenberg Bros.) 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 997435-G of Oxenberg Bros., 5 Cust. Ct. 345 (cusc 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The appraiser reported that the fish was not capable of being marked and that the immediate containers thereof bore no marks to indicate its country of origin. It appeared that each fish was wrapped in burlap and that a board bearing the words “Roumanian Product” was placed against its head. On the authority of Abstract 37822 it was held that the fish was marked in as permanent a manner as its nature would permit. Greene v. United States (4 Cust. Ct. 97, C. D. 296) and Kraft v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 111, T. D. 47103) cited. United States v. Monteverde (26 id. 112, C. A. D. 2) distinguished. On the authority of Golding v. United States (4 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 287) the adjectival form of marking — “Roumanian Product” — was held to be legal.

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

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The appraiser reported that the fish was not capable of being marked and that the immediate containers thereof bore no marks to indicate its country of origin. It appeared that each fish was wrapped in burlap and that a board bearing the words “Roumanian Product” was placed against its head. On the authority of Abstract 37822 it was held that the fish was marked in as permanent a manner as its nature would permit. Greene v. United States (4 Cust. Ct. 97, C. D. 296) and Kraft v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 111, T. D. 47103) cited. United States v. Monteverde (26 id. 112, C. A. D. 2) distinguished. On the authority of Golding v. United States (4 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 287) the adjectival form of marking — “Roumanian Product” — was held to be legal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cust. Ct. 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protests-997435-g-of-oxenberg-bros-cusc-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack