Hudson-Rissman v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
Donlon, Judge:
I concur with my colleagues that the evidence of record shows that the articles of this litigation are not articles of utility or for industrial use, and I concur also that there is no evidence that the paintings on glass are works of art. I am of opinion, however, that there is a prima facie case, established to be sure by testimony defendant elicited on cross-examination, that the bowl here in question is a work of art within the scope of the dutiable provision of paragraph 1547. The witness Kissman so testified.
That defendant is bound…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. Baar & Beards, Inc.United States Customs Court · 1958
- Florea & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941