Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

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

1Concurrence

*256CONCURRING OPINION

Cole, Judge:

This case reaches me after preparation of the initial opinion by Judge Walker and a dissenting opinion by Judge Oliver. While I concur in the judgment of my associate, Judge Walker, reasons different from those presented in his opinion persuade me to do so.

It is clear to me that the imported commodity is not a wax as contemplated by paragraph 1796, which provides for “Wax: Animal, vegetable, or mineral, not specially provided for,” as claimed by plaintiff. Nor is it a manufacture of wax, as classified by the collector.

Admittedly, the imported merchandise is 87…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. MorningstarCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909
  2. 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