Case: Armour & Company v. United States
Abbreviation: Armour v. United States
Decision Date: 1954-01-13
Docket Number: No. 57761; protests 184493-K and 188456-K (New York)
Citation: 32 Cust. Ct. 370
Volume: 32
Reporter: United States Customs Court Reports
Court: United States Customs Court
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Armour & Company v. United States,
Judges: 
Pages: 370–370

Head Matter:
No. 57761.
protests 184493-K and 188456-K (New York).
Armour & Company v. United States,

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mollison, J.
It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is a synthetic resin having a molecular weight of approximately 80,000, is a medicinal preparation, has therapeutic properties, is chiefly used for medicinal purposes, and is not a drug of either animal or vegetable origin. In plaintiff's brief, it was pointed out thar the agreed facts established that the merchandise in issue is both a synthetic resin and a medicinal preparation. Citing United States v. Lo Curto & Funk (17 C. C. P. A. 19, T. D. 43319), holding that the provision for "all medicinal preparations" is a designation by use, plaintiff invoked the well-settled rule under the doctrine of relative specificity that in the absence of a contrary legislative intent a designation by use will control classification over an eo nomine or descriptive provision. It was held that no contrary legislative intent appears here. Since the soundness of the application of the rule to the situation at bar apparently was not questioned by the defendant, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.