Bloodgood v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Bloodgood v. United States

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

United States Customs Court·Decided December 12, 1949·No. No. 53815; protest 146626-K (New York)·Published

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).

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

Pincite

23 Cust. Ct. 228 (Bloodgood v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.