Legal Opinion · Dissent

Samuel Shapiro & Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided January 21, 1948No. C. D. 1081Published

1Dissent

*46DISSENTING OPINION

Cole, Judge:

I dissent from the reasoning and conclusion of the majority because of tbeir application of tbe principle of “similitude,” which, is based on the statement “that we may take judicial notice that there is a similarity of material between natural cork in sheets and artificial, composition, or compressed cork in the forms for which provision is made in paragraph 1511, above quoted” (referring to that part of paragraph 1511 of the Tariff Act of 1930, providing for “cork, commonly or commercially known as artificial, composition, or compressed cork, in the rough and…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Murphy v. ArnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Arthur v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  3. Stuart v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
  4. United States v. DowningSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  5. Isler v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API