Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mullins Industrial Diamond Corp. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 30, 1965No. C.D. 2553Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Donlon, Judge:

I dissent. On grounds stated in our opinion in Engelhard Hanovia Inc. v. United States, 54 Cust. Ct. 233, C.D. 2538, on the issue of classification, and in my dissenting opinions, in Diamond Tool Research Co., Inc. v. United States, 55 Cust. Ct. 37, C.D. 2551, and in Eastern Diamond Products Company, Inc. v. United States, 55 Cust. Ct. 62, C.D. 2552, on the issue of jurisdiction, and on the facts of record here, I find that plaintiff is an American wholesaler of natural diamond dust, which is merchandise of the same class or kind as the imported synthetic…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Diamond Tool Research Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  2. Eastern Diamond Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  3. Engelhard Hanovia, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API