Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mattoon & Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided May 20, 1953No. C. D. 1525Published

1Dissent

BISSENTING OPINION

Oliver, Chief Jüdge:

I respectfully dissent from the conclusion reached by my colleagues, holding that the merchandise in question “consists of rags within the' common meaning of that term, and,' moreover, that it consists of such wool rags as are within the purview of paragraph 1105, supra.”

Much of the majority opinion is directed toward emphasizing that the statutory term, “wool rags,” includes new rags as well as old. While I recognize that well-settled judicial interpretation of the tariff *234provision under consideration, I do not agree with, tlie majority-opinion in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. American Wool Stock Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1941
  2. Protests 112155-K of LobsitzUnited States Customs Court · 1946
  3. Shallus v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912

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

Powered by the Exa API