Cottier v. United States

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Cottier v. United States

101 F. 423, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5172

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedFebruary 2, 1900

DocketNo. 2,763

StatusPublished

This text of 101 F. 423 (Cottier v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cottier v. United States, 101 F. 423, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5172 (circtsdny 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge

(orally). The appraiser noted on the invoices, “Add for goods in excess as noted; no evidence of intended fraud,” — and also, “Add manufactures of wood.” The merchandise in question consisted of certain paintings, and the additional duty was for the frames thereon. The protest was as follows:

“Wo herewith protest against the assessment of $328.65 duties on frames contained in case's 1.051/02, arrived per S. S. England from London, on the ground Unit the value of the same', is included in the invoice amount as entered. We therefore respectfully request that the appraiser may reconsider his classification, we claiming that the same is erroneous as returned by him.”

The opinion of the hoard of general appraisers was to the effect that the question was one of value, and not of classification, and that the remedy of the importers was by appeal for a reappraisement. The protest is not sufficiently definite, and the decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge

(orally). The appraiser noted on the invoices, “Add for goods in excess as noted; no evidence of intended fraud,” — and also, “Add manufactures of wood.” The merchandise in question consisted of certain paintings, and the additional duty was for the frames thereon. The protest was as follows:

“Wo herewith protest against the assessment of $328.65 duties on frames contained in case's 1.051/02, arrived per S. S. England from London, on the ground Unit the value of the same', is included in the invoice amount as entered. We therefore respectfully request that the appraiser may reconsider his classification, we claiming that the same is erroneous as returned by him.”

The opinion of the hoard of general appraisers was to the effect that the question was one of value, and not of classification, and that the remedy of the importers was by appeal for a reappraisement. The protest is not sufficiently definite, and the decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 F. 423, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cottier-v-united-states-circtsdny-1900.