Armstrong v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Armstrong v. United States

23 Cust. Ct. 225, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1137

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedDecember 12, 1949

DocketNo. 53800; petition 6674-R (San Juan)

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Cust. Ct. 225 (Armstrong 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

Armstrong v. United States, 23 Cust. Ct. 225, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1137 (cusc 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The president of the petitioning corporation testified that he ordered the feed through a Puerto Rican company which owned and controlled the Dominican exporting firm; that the price as given to him personally by the president of the said Puerto Rican company was $3.50 per bag of 100 pounds; and that he had no reason to suspect that the $3.50 price was abnormal. Ap-praisement was later made at a value of $3.80 per 100 pounds, net, packed. From the entire record the court was satisfied that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.

Cole, J., concurring.

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

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The president of the petitioning corporation testified that he ordered the feed through a Puerto Rican company which owned and controlled the Dominican exporting firm; that the price as given to him personally by the president of the said Puerto Rican company was $3.50 per bag of 100 pounds; and that he had no reason to suspect that the $3.50 price was abnormal. Ap-praisement was later made at a value of $3.80 per 100 pounds, net, packed. From the entire record the court was satisfied that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.

Cole, J., concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Cust. Ct. 225, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-united-states-cusc-1949.