Bryant & Heffernan, Inc. v. United States
35 Cust. Ct. 310
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bryant & Heffernan, Inc. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 32 Cust. Ct. 192 →
United States Customs Court·Decided November 17, 1955·No. No. 59465; protest 252908-K (New York)·Published
Opinion
Opinion by
Although compliance with the regulations is not a condition precedent in shortage cases (United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc., 34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that plaintiff is required to present evidence that a shortage existed at the time of unloading (United States v. Brown, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 189, T. D. 31943). Since the official papers .were not offered in evidence nor was any other evidence of shortage presented, the court was constrained to overrule the protest.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bryant & Heffernan, Inc. v. United States, 35 Cust. Ct. 310 (cusc 1955).
35 Cust. Ct. 310 (Bryant & Heffernan, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Brown
2 Ct. Cust. 189 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1911)