Legal Opinion

Finn Bros. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided April 26, 1976No. C.D. 4647; Court Nos. 70/64009, etc.; Court Nos. 70/9485, etc.; Court Nos. 70/24316, etcPublished

1Opinion of the Court

Watson, Judge:

In these jointly tried actions plaintiffs oppose the classification of their imported carved ivory flowers as jewelry or parts thereof 1 and seek classification of them as semiprecious stones.2 Plaintiffs argue that these importations fall within the common meaning, or alternatively, the commercial moaning, of the term semiprecious stones. The record in Finn Bros., Inc. v. United States, 59 CCPA 72, C.A.D. 1042, 454 F. 2d 1404 (1972), aff’g 65 Cust. Ct. 252, C.D. 4085 (1970), was incorporated herein.

*142As a preliminary matter, I am of the opinion plaintiffs have successfully proved…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Authentic Furniture Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1972
  2. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
  3. Finn Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
  4. Finn Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API