Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Paillard, Inc. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 8, 1968No. 5280Published

1ConcurrenceSmith, Judge

In my view, the issue in this case turns primarily on whether the importer has failed to show by substantial evidence that the collector’s classification was erroneous. I believe he has failed to meet his burden of proof and so concur in the result reached by the majority.

It is well settled that the burden is on the protestant to show by substantial evidence that (1) the collector’s classification was erroneous, and (2) the asserted classification of the merchandise in issue is proper, e.g., Novelty Import Co. v. United States, 53 CCPA 28, C.A.D. 872 (1966); Brown Boveri Corp. v. United…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Unimark Photo, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  2. Bushnell International, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  3. Barnett Customs Brokers, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
  4. Kanematsu New York, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
  5. Kanematsu New York, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962

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