Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Water Treatment Co. of America v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 14, 1945No. C. D. 929Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION

Cline, Judge:

I concur in the opinion of my associate Judge Oliver that the burden of going forward with the evidence and establishing the applicability of the mixed-materials clause is upon the Government.

In my opinion, at the conclusion of the first hearing, plaintiff had established prima facie that the merchandise was not classifiable under paragraph 5,, but was dutiable under paragraph 1558, following Quong Yuen Shing Co. v. United States, 31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247. The fact that the court restored the case to the calendar for further proof as to the component…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Scott v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. United States v. SchadeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  3. United States v. Edson Keith & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
  4. United States v. Briggs Manufacturing Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  5. Oviatt Importing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1942

2 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