Legal Opinion · Dissent

Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided May 5, 1943No. C. D. 764Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

I am constrained to dissent from the decision of my associates herein. I concur insofar as the decision holds that the product before the court is a wax and not a manufacture of wax and that the collector erred in assessing duty on it as such. I am of opinion, however, that this merchandise is properly entitled to entry free of duty as claimed by plaintiff herein.

*258The master rule of construction in customs litigation has ever been to interpret the intent of Congress (United States v. Clay Adams Co., 20 C. C. P. A. 285/288, T. D. 46078). As far back as…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. Stone & Downer Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Bayersdorfer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  3. Adolphe Hurst & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API