Dohrmann Commercial Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Dohrmann Commercial Co. v. United States

27 Cust. Ct. 338, 1951 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1120

United States Customs Court·Decided October 30, 1951·No. No. 55949; protest 136062-K (San Francisco)·Published

Opinion

[339]*339Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial the customhouse broker testified that duress certificates were filed for both invoices and the office copy of the certificates covering invoice Nos. 1 and 2 was received in evidence as collective exhibit 1. Upon the record presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained, the court finding that the plaintiff had overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action by positive proof that the missing duress certificate was actually filed by plaintiff’s agent. The collector was therefore directed to re-liquidate and make allowance for the British purchase tax, in accordance with the judgment in Reap. Dec. 7053, supra.

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

[339]*339Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial the customhouse broker testified that duress certificates were filed for both invoices and the office copy of the certificates covering invoice Nos. 1 and 2 was received in evidence as collective exhibit 1. Upon the record presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained, the court finding that the plaintiff had overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action by positive proof that the missing duress certificate was actually filed by plaintiff’s agent. The collector was therefore directed to re-liquidate and make allowance for the British purchase tax, in accordance with the judgment in Reap. Dec. 7053, supra.

Dohrmann Commercial Co. v. United States, 27 Cust. Ct. 338, 1951 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1120 (cusc 1951).

Pincite

27 Cust. Ct. 338 (Dohrmann Commercial Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.