Dolliff v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Dolliff v. United States

31 Cust. Ct. 300

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedNovember 12, 1953

DocketNo. 57621; protest 208800-K (Boston)

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Cust. Ct. 300 (Dolliff 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

Dolliff v. United States, 31 Cust. Ct. 300 (cusc 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, it was established that bale YN/LP 6715/2955, No. 3, which was short-shipped, was subsequently imported and entered under entry 3732; that the entry in question, 2651, covering the original shipment upon which the shortage was reported, bore no notation that there had been an extract of the invoice for one bale covered by entry 3732, but that- entry 3732 contained such information. The court held that it was clear from the evidence that duty upon the bale involved was assessed twice. On the record presented and following United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that duty is not assessable upon the bale in question.

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 established that bale YN/LP 6715/2955, No. 3, which was short-shipped, was subsequently imported and entered under entry 3732; that the entry in question, 2651, covering the original shipment upon which the shortage was reported, bore no notation that there had been an extract of the invoice for one bale covered by entry 3732, but that- entry 3732 contained such information. The court held that it was clear from the evidence that duty upon the bale involved was assessed twice. On the record presented and following United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that duty is not assessable upon the bale in question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Cust. Ct. 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dolliff-v-united-states-cusc-1953.