P. John Hanrahan, Inc., Trans. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Donlon, Judge:
The official papers in the entry which is the subject of this litigation were not offered in evidence and, therefore, are not of record. Plaintiffs’ counsel, on trial, made an opening statement as to the issues that are litigated, and defendant’s counsel informed the court that the statement substantially reflected the issues. The merchandise was said to have been invoiced as wheat gum gluten. That fact seems to be conceded.
The merchandise was classified by the collector, in liquidation, under paragraph 1558, as articles, manufactured in whole or in part, not specially provided…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. Aetna Explosives Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Cruikshank v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1894
- In re CruikshankU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1893
- Schall & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
3Cited by3 opinions
- Strauss v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
- Barad Shaff Sales Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- Heublein, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963