Legal Opinion · Dissent

Burroughs-Wellcome Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 17, 1955No. C. D. 1738Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Oliver, Chief Judge:

I regretfully dissent from the decision herein of my associates.

The “digitalis lanata” involved herein meets all of the statutory requirements of a drug. It is an uncompounded substance of vegetable origin, containing no alcohol, not edible, and “having therapeutic or medicinal properties and chiefly used for medicinal purposes,” paragraph 34 of the Tariff Act of 1930. While this “digitalis lanata” is a drug, within the tariff definition of the term, it is not ipso facto classifiable either under paragraph 34, covering advanced drugs, or paragraph 1669,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Draeger Shipping Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. Seward v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
  3. Nylos Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API