Emery v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
DoNLON, Judge:
Identification by plaintiff of the merchandise at issue was made only by claim of plaintiff’s counsel, and the official papers are not in evidence. However, defendant’s brief concedes that the protest merchandise “consists of three separate and distinct materials, identified on the invoices as Lignosol BD, Lignosol XD, and Lignosol TSD, exported from Canada by Lignosol Chemicals, Ltd., and genetically described on said invoices as evaporated lignum extract suitable for use in tanning containing no alcohol.” (Defendant’s *185brief, p. 1.) The assertion of plaintiff’s counsel and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Steinberg Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
- Meyers & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
- United States v. Lehn & FinkCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
- Naumes Forwarding Service v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. EmeryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966