Copeland & Thompson, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Copeland & Thompson, Inc. v. United States

24 Cust. Ct. 374, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1663

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedFebruary 16, 1950

DocketNo. 54038; protest 142346-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Cust. Ct. 374 (Copeland & Thompson, Inc. 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

Copeland & Thompson, Inc. v. United States, 24 Cust. Ct. 374, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1663 (cusc 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that cask No. 7864 was landed in bad order and upon examination was found to contain 31 wrapped packages, whereas the invoiced quantity of the cask indicated that 51 packages were shipped; that the 20 packages reported short by the inspector were not received in any other package covered by the entry; and that the issues herein are the same as those the subject of United States v. Washington State Liquor Control Board (34 C. C. P. A. 118, C. A. D. 352). In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon said 20 packages of chinaware figures indicated as short in the report of the discharging inspector. The protest was sustained to this extent.

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that cask No. 7864 was landed in bad order and upon examination was found to contain 31 wrapped packages, whereas the invoiced quantity of the cask indicated that 51 packages were shipped; that the 20 packages reported short by the inspector were not received in any other package covered by the entry; and that the issues herein are the same as those the subject of United States v. Washington State Liquor Control Board (34 C. C. P. A. 118, C. A. D. 352). In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon said 20 packages of chinaware figures indicated as short in the report of the discharging inspector. The protest was sustained to this extent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Cust. Ct. 374, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/copeland-thompson-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1950.