Legal Opinion

Hoyt v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided January 13, 1964No. C.D. 2426PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DoNLON, Judge:

The issue here is the same as the issue which was before the court in S. Blondheim & Co. et al. v. United States, 49 Cust. Ct. 8, C.D. 2352, there decided adversely to plaintiff’s claim.. The merchandise is the same. The record before us is somewhat different.

The question is whether sausage casings, made of an outer casing of natural hog bung lined with viscon, a synthetic material, are or are not the sausage casings for which Congress made eo nomine free entry provision, paragraph 1755, Tariff Act of 1930. In the earlier Blondheim case, we held that plaintiff had not shown that…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. American Net & Twine Co. v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Newman v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  3. United States v. DowningCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  4. Smillie v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
  5. Blondheim v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Borneo Sumatra Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  2. M. H. Garvey Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  3. Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni, S. Blondheim & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API