Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Beiersdorf v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided August 26, 1946No. (C. D. 1021)Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

Por the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion filed in Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States, 10 Cust. Ct. 251, C. D. 764, I concur in the conclusion of my associate, Judge Cole, as I am of opinion that the imported merchandise, being a mixture of wool wax and paraffin, neither of which is subject to duty, is entitled *66to entry free of duty under the provisions of paragraph 1796 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (United States v. Morningstar, 168 Fed. 541).

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. MorningstarCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909
  2. Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1943