Legal Opinion

Protests 996137-G of Eitinger Bead Co.

United States Customs Court

Decided April 22, 1942No. 47109PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The record established that the articles in question fall squarely within the definitions of beads as given by various dictionaries and confirms the statements that perforations in beads penetrate through the article and that they are not limited to number or location. It was stated that the scope of paragraph 1503 embraced beads of various sizes. United States v. General Transport Co. (22 C. C. P. A. 446, T. D. 47440), United States v. Judae (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 164, T. D. 41024), and Abstract 36953 cited. Counsel conceded that the items in question are composed of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. JudaeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Brier Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
  2. Eitinger Bead Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
  3. Brier Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API