China Man Way Fur Corp. v. United States

Opinion by

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.

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1802, supra.