General
China Man Way Fur Corp. v. United States
39 Cust. Ct. 355·United States Customs Court·1957
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 61022.
protest 936432-G (New York).
China Man Way Fur Corp. v. United States,
[MAJORITY — Wilson, J.]
Opinion by
Wilson, J.
In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of Prime Fur Corp. v. United States (37 Cust. Ct. 83, C. D. 1802) and that the items marked “B” consist of goatskins similar to those involved in United States v. Winograd Bros., Inc. (32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
[DISSENT — Mollison, J.,]
Mollison, J.,
dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1802, supra.