Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffjurisdictionstatuteleasesustained
plaintiffdefendantattorneystatuteamicus curiaewillsustained

Related Cases

Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc. v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 2 Cust.Ct. 172, 1939 WL 4379, C.D. 117
View Case »
Cohen v. Rice, 992 F.2d 376, 61 USLW 2677
View Case »
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641, 74 USLW 4248, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1577, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3935, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5756, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 197, 27 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 685
View Case »
Diggs v. Richardson, 555 F.2d 848, 42 A.L.R. Fed. 571, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 376
View Case »
Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon S.A., 203 F.3d 116, 2000-1 Trade Cases P 72,780, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Friedlaender & Co., Inc. v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 2 Cust.Ct. 406, 1939 WL 4428, C.D. 166

Facts

The plaintiff, Friedlaender & Co., Inc., imported chinaware that was manufactured in Czechoslovakia before Germany took control of the Sudeten territory. The merchandise was marked to indicate its Czechoslovakian origin at the time of importation. The collector of customs refused to release the merchandise, claiming it needed to be marked as German due to the change in jurisdiction that occurred after the goods were shipped.

That the merchandise forming the subject matter of this suit was shipped from the Sudeten territory after November 10, 1938.

Issue

Whether the chinaware was properly marked to indicate its country of origin as Czechoslovakia, despite the change in jurisdiction to Germany after the goods were exported.

The main question for decision is whether the chinaware was marked at the time of importation so as to indicate the country of origin thereof.

Rule

The marking statute requires that every article of foreign origin imported into the United States must be marked to indicate the country of origin, which is defined as the country where the merchandise was produced.

The statute prescribes in plain language that every article of foreign origin imported into the United States shall be marked in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser the country of origin.

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts and determined that the chinaware was completely manufactured in Czechoslovakia prior to the jurisdiction change. The court emphasized that the marking should reflect the country of manufacture rather than the country of exportation. Since the goods were marked as Czechoslovakian at the time of importation, the collector's refusal to release them was deemed erroneous.

The court has construed the words 'country of origin' to mean the country in which imported merchandise was produced, citing Closset & Devers v. United States, supra, and Reichenbach & Co., Inc. v. United States, supra.

Conclusion

The court sustained the protest and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the release of the chinaware marked as Czechoslovakian.

The protest is sustained. Judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiff.

Who won?

Plaintiff, Friedlaender & Co., Inc., prevailed because the court found that the chinaware was properly marked as Czechoslovakian, reflecting its true country of origin prior to the jurisdiction change.

The court has the benefit of a brief filed by an attorney, as amicus curiae, representing the Jewish War Veterans of the United States, but as the contentions therein are substantially the same as those set forth by the defendant, heretofore discussed, we deem it unnecessary to extend this decision by enumerating them.

You must be