Legal Opinion

F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided March 21, 1957No. C. D. 1861PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WilsoN, Judge:

The merchandise here involved (plaintiff’s ex-

hibit 9) was invoiced as “MangaNese Dioxide (Manganese Ore Washed Ground Battery Manganese No. 2).” During the trial of the case, the materials were referred to by the plaintiff’s witnesses and counsel as manganese dioxide ore and activated manganese ore. It is admitted by both parties that the product is not manganese salt. An analysis of a sample of the merchandise by Government chemists showed it to contain 52.68 per centum “metallic manganese” (R. 27). Upon arrival in the United States, the imported material was not further…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Tower v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  2. Union Carbide Int'l Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
  3. Union Carbide Int'l, Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API