Arthur J. Fritz & Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Arthur J. Fritz & Co. v. United States

49 Cust. Ct. 260, 1962 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 982

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1962

DocketNo. 67122; protests 60/16613, etc. (Los Angeles)

StatusPublished

This text of 49 Cust. Ct. 260 (Arthur J. Fritz & Co. 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

Arthur J. Fritz & Co. v. United States, 49 Cust. Ct. 260, 1962 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 982 (cusc 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Richardson, Judge:

Five protests covering 13 entries have been consolidated for trial. The involved importations consist of plywood and men’s cotton shirts of Japanese origin, which were entered at Los Angeles, Calif., at various times. The subject entries were liquidated by the collector of customs on the basis of advanced values. It is claimed that the liquidations are illegal and void because notice of appraisement was not given as required by statute.

The protests were submitted to the court upon a stipulation which reads as follows:

Mr. Glad : * * *

I offer to stipulate'that in all of these cases no notice of appraisement on Customs Form 4301, was [sic] required by Section 501 of the Tariff Act, was given.

Mr. Braverman : From information obtained from Mr. Arthur Hoffnung, chief liquidator in the office of the Collector of Customs at Los Angeles, the Government so stipulates.

Accepting this stipulation as evidence of the facts and upon the authority of 19 U.S.C.A., section 1501 (§ 501, Tariff Act of 1930), and United States v. James H. Rhodes & Co., 40 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 1, C.A.D. 488, we hold that the appraise-ments and liquidations heretofore undertaken in connection with the entries covered by the protests listed in the schedule of protests hereto attached and made a part hereof are illegal and void. In accordance with the provisions [261]*261of 28 U.S.C.A., section 2636(d), the matter is remanded to a single judge of this court to determine the proper dutiable value of the subject merchandise in the manner provided by law.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

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

Richardson, Judge:

Five protests covering 13 entries have been consolidated for trial. The involved importations consist of plywood and men’s cotton shirts of Japanese origin, which were entered at Los Angeles, Calif., at various times. The subject entries were liquidated by the collector of customs on the basis of advanced values. It is claimed that the liquidations are illegal and void because notice of appraisement was not given as required by statute.

The protests were submitted to the court upon a stipulation which reads as follows:

Mr. Glad : * * *

I offer to stipulate'that in all of these cases no notice of appraisement on Customs Form 4301, was [sic] required by Section 501 of the Tariff Act, was given.

Mr. Braverman : From information obtained from Mr. Arthur Hoffnung, chief liquidator in the office of the Collector of Customs at Los Angeles, the Government so stipulates.

Accepting this stipulation as evidence of the facts and upon the authority of 19 U.S.C.A., section 1501 (§ 501, Tariff Act of 1930), and United States v. James H. Rhodes & Co., 40 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 1, C.A.D. 488, we hold that the appraise-ments and liquidations heretofore undertaken in connection with the entries covered by the protests listed in the schedule of protests hereto attached and made a part hereof are illegal and void. In accordance with the provisions [261]*261of 28 U.S.C.A., section 2636(d), the matter is remanded to a single judge of this court to determine the proper dutiable value of the subject merchandise in the manner provided by law.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Cust. Ct. 260, 1962 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-j-fritz-co-v-united-states-cusc-1962.