Didia v. United States, 9106.
| Decision Date | 26 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 9106.,9106. |
| Citation | 106 F.2d 918 |
| Parties | DIDIA v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Granville Egan and John J. Sullivan, both of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and Gerald Shucklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash.
Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
From conviction on four counts of an indictment charging appellant with the removal of labels containing the words "Made in Japan", on merchandise imported from Japan, appellant has brought this appeal.
19 U.S.C.A. § 1304(a) provides in part: "Every article imported into the United States * * * shall be marked * * * in legible English words, in a conspicuous place, in such manner as to indicate the country of origin of such article, in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe. * *"
Subdivision (d) provides a penalty if "any person shall, with intent to conceal the information given thereby * * * destroy, remove * * * any * * * label required under the provisions of this chapter * * *."
The indictment contained four counts, each of which charged removal of labels from merchandise specified in each count. Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to show: (1) that the merchandise ever bore labels containing the words "Made in Japan"; and (2) that such labels complied with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury.
The record discloses that the merchandise in question was imported into the United States from Japan. Custom agents had purchased the merchandise in question from a store managed by appellant. Such agents examined the merchandise in the stock room in the rear of the store and found it properly marked with the exception of a very few articles. In a trash box in such room such agents found 639 of such labels.
There was testimony by employees of the wholesale houses where the merchandise in question was purchased that such merchandise bore labels "Made in Japan" when the merchandise was shipped to the store managed by appellant. It was brought out on cross-examination, however, that each article was not examined, but that it was assumed that the merchandise was properly marked because if not the Customs House would have notified the wholesalers at the time of importation. There was testimony of former employees of the store managed by appellant, that the label on one article of the merchandise in question had been cut off with scissors and that the labels on two other articles had been torn off. The articles still disclosed remains of the labels at the trial. Six former employees testified that they were instructed by appellant and the owner of the store to remove all labels "Made in Japan" because of a customer-prejudice against goods made in Japan. One employee testified (1) that appellant instructed her to tell Customs Agents that salesgirls employed at the Christmas season removed the labels, and (2) that the labels on the merchandise in question could not have fallen off because they were removed when the articles were taken from stock.
For appellant, there was testimony that such labels easily fall off, and several imported articles purchased at other stores were introduced to show that such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. United States
...that the burden is always upon an appellant to show that he has suffered damage in his case." To the same effect, Didia v. United States, 1939, 9 Cir., 106 F.2d 918, 920. There is a presumption that the District Court tried the case properly and that it protected the rights of the defendant......