General
Mei Hwa Fur Trading Corp. et al. v. United States
30 Cust. Ct. 475·United States Customs Court·1953
Poed, J., concurred. · Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, supra, only so far as the items marked “A” are concerned.
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. 57386.
protests 685642-G, etc. (New York).
Mei Hwa Fur Trading Corp. et al. v. United States,
[MAJORITY — Olivee, C. J.]
Opinion by
Olivee, C. J.
In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the •items marked “A” consist of kidskin plates similar in all material respects to those the subject of Kung Chen Fur Corpn. v. United States (29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) and that the items marked “B” consist of dogskins the same as those involved in United States v. Arnhold & Co., Inc., et al. (27 C. C. P. A. 135, C. A. D. 74), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
Poed, J., concurred.
Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, supra, only so far as the items marked “A” are concerned.