Andree Fabrics v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Andree Fabrics v. United States

32 Cust. Ct. 539, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2182

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJune 17, 1954

DocketNo. 58202; protest 204985-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Cust. Ct. 539 (Andree Fabrics v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andree Fabrics v. United States, 32 Cust. Ct. 539, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2182 (cusc 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The importer contended that the weights listed on the invoice included tubes and wrapping paper, besides the rayon. However, he was unable to submit any proof of such contention, because he had returned the goods to England and had not weighed the merchandise when it was imported. The importer’s attention was called to the fact that the examiner, in reporting to the collector concerning the invoice weights, had stated in a memorandum accompanying the invoice that the weights noted thereon were “net net weights,” as found at the time of examination. The importer, however, stated that the examiner just put “net” down too often and that it was not “net, net.” Thg examiner testified that tare is deducted as accurately as possible, but on this particular shipment nothing had to be deducted from the weight because the invoice weight represented the dutiable weight. In view of the fact that the only evidence before the court was that given by the examiner, who reported what was found by his office, the court was constrained to overrule the protest.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The importer contended that the weights listed on the invoice included tubes and wrapping paper, besides the rayon. However, he was unable to submit any proof of such contention, because he had returned the goods to England and had not weighed the merchandise when it was imported. The importer’s attention was called to the fact that the examiner, in reporting to the collector concerning the invoice weights, had stated in a memorandum accompanying the invoice that the weights noted thereon were “net net weights,” as found at the time of examination. The importer, however, stated that the examiner just put “net” down too often and that it was not “net, net.” Thg examiner testified that tare is deducted as accurately as possible, but on this particular shipment nothing had to be deducted from the weight because the invoice weight represented the dutiable weight. In view of the fact that the only evidence before the court was that given by the examiner, who reported what was found by his office, the court was constrained to overrule the protest.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Cust. Ct. 539, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andree-fabrics-v-united-states-cusc-1954.