Wing On Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Wing On Co. v. United States

25 Cust. Ct. 271, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 278

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedSeptember 12, 1950

DocketNo. 54653; protest 96004-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Cust. Ct. 271 (Wing On Co. v. United States) 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

Wing On Co. v. United States, 25 Cust. Ct. 271, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 278 (cusc 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

At the trial the defendant contended that the merchandise is dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1538 by similitude to-manufactures of ivory. A Government chemist’s report received in evidence (exhibit 2) states that the sample of the merchandise (exhibit 1) is composed wholly of synthetic phenolic resin with a little pigment but that the resin does not serve as a binding agent. In this connection, the records in Abstracts 45795, 49907, 51306, and 51959 were incorporated herein. The testimony of the examiner in the case of Wenchow Importing Co. v. United States, Abstract 54651, decided concurrently herewith, was admitted in evidence herein. Said testimony failed to establish that the imported articles were similar to ivory in material, texture, quality, and use, as claimed, and failed to support classification by similitude. Roovers Bros., Inc. v. United States (23 Cust. Ct. 53, C. D. 1190) cited. On the record presented and following the cited authorities, it was held that the defendant failed to establish its claim that these articles are dutiable under paragraph 1538. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.

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

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

At the trial the defendant contended that the merchandise is dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1538 by similitude to-manufactures of ivory. A Government chemist’s report received in evidence (exhibit 2) states that the sample of the merchandise (exhibit 1) is composed wholly of synthetic phenolic resin with a little pigment but that the resin does not serve as a binding agent. In this connection, the records in Abstracts 45795, 49907, 51306, and 51959 were incorporated herein. The testimony of the examiner in the case of Wenchow Importing Co. v. United States, Abstract 54651, decided concurrently herewith, was admitted in evidence herein. Said testimony failed to establish that the imported articles were similar to ivory in material, texture, quality, and use, as claimed, and failed to support classification by similitude. Roovers Bros., Inc. v. United States (23 Cust. Ct. 53, C. D. 1190) cited. On the record presented and following the cited authorities, it was held that the defendant failed to establish its claim that these articles are dutiable under paragraph 1538. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Cust. Ct. 271, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wing-on-co-v-united-states-cusc-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack