Case ID: ct-cust_4/html/0035-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Montgomery, Presiding Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hayden Co. v. United States
    (No. 1005).
    
    Marble Products not Sculptures.
    The Board of General Appraisers found these marble products were not the pro» ductions of a sculptor. The record sustains this finding.
    United States Court of Customs Appeals,
    February 18, 1913.
    Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29531 (T. D. 32767).
    [Affirmed.]
    
      Churchill & Marlow (William A. Hines of counsel) for appellant.
    
      William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Leland N. Wood, assistant attorney, of counsel), for the United States.
    Before Montgomery, Smith, Barber, De Vries, and Martin, Judges.
    
      
       Reportes in T. D. 33222 (24 Treas. Dec., 311).
    
   Montgomery, Presiding Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Large importations of marble products were made, claimed to be the professional productions of a sculptor only. The Board of General Appraisers found that the evidence produced was insufficient to establish the facts claimed. The importer appeals. The sole question presented is whether the finding of the board was justified.

A careful consideration of the record convinces us that the evidence was wholly insufficient to sustain the claim made by the importer.

The decision is affirmed.