Water Treatment Co. of America v. United States
United States Customs Court
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
- Scott v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- United States v. SchadeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- United States v. Edson Keith & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- United States v. Briggs Manufacturing Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Oviatt Importing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1942
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.