Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hudson-Rissman v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided February 9, 1961No. C.D. 2237Published

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

  1. United States v. Baar & Beards, Inc.United States Customs Court · 1958
  2. Florea & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API