Legal Opinion · Dissent

J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 25, 1965No. C.D. 2549Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Richardson, Judge:

I agree with my colleagues that plastic toilet roll holders are not properly classifiable under paragraph 212, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, by virtue of the similitude clause in paragraph 1559, as amended. The language of paragraph 212 excludes *30merchandise which does not show, as the imported merchandise does not, a vitrified or vitreous or semivitrified or semivitreous fracture, even though the similitude relied upon is that of use. Maker-App & Company v. United States, 44 CCPA 22, C.A.D. 630; S. S. Kresge Co. et al. v. United States, 46 CCPA 100,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Isler v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
  2. Salentine & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  3. Bartley Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  4. Robins v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  5. Johnson & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API