Bloodgood v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Bloodgood v. United States

23 Cust. Ct. 228, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1152

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedDecember 12, 1949

DocketNo. 53815; protest 146626-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Cust. Ct. 228 (Bloodgood 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

Bloodgood v. United States, 23 Cust. Ct. 228, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1152 (cusc 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

When the case was called for trial there was no appearance on behalf of the importer. An examination of the record indicated that the importer failed to file a certificate of outward manifest or any other evidence as to the existence of all the facts upon which free entry is dependent. In view of the noncompliance with mandatory regulations, the protest was overruled, following Maple Leaf Petroleum, Ltd. v. United States (25 C. C. P. A. 5, T. D. 48976).

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

When the case was called for trial there was no appearance on behalf of the importer. An examination of the record indicated that the importer failed to file a certificate of outward manifest or any other evidence as to the existence of all the facts upon which free entry is dependent. In view of the noncompliance with mandatory regulations, the protest was overruled, following Maple Leaf Petroleum, Ltd. v. United States (25 C. C. P. A. 5, T. D. 48976).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Cust. Ct. 228, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloodgood-v-united-states-cusc-1949.