Legal Opinion

Emery v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided May 26, 1964No. C.D. 2459PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Steinberg Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  2. Meyers & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
  3. United States v. Lehn & FinkCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919
  4. Naumes Forwarding Service v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. EmeryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API