Duffield Distributing Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Duffield Distributing Co. v. United States

30 Cust. Ct. 353, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 135

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedFebruary 26, 1953

DocketNo. 57105; protest 171446-K (Los Angeles)

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Cust. Ct. 353 (Duffield Distributing Co. 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

Duffield Distributing Co. v. United States, 30 Cust. Ct. 353, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 135 (cusc 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It appeared from the record that the discharging inspector reported 11 cases of cognac short-landed; that the affidavit of short shipment filed by the importer covered only 6 of the cases; and that the collector granted an allowance in duties and internal revenue taxes as to said 6 cases but refused to make an allowance upon the remainder of the eases reported. The testimony fully established that the 5 cases not covered by the importer’s affidavit were not received as a part of the shipment in question which was entered under entry 2155 but were imported at a later date under entry 5248, upon which duty and internal revenue taxes again were paid. In view of the evidence presented, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon said 5 cases of cognac, not landed. 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.

It appeared from the record that the discharging inspector reported 11 cases of cognac short-landed; that the affidavit of short shipment filed by the importer covered only 6 of the cases; and that the collector granted an allowance in duties and internal revenue taxes as to said 6 cases but refused to make an allowance upon the remainder of the eases reported. The testimony fully established that the 5 cases not covered by the importer’s affidavit were not received as a part of the shipment in question which was entered under entry 2155 but were imported at a later date under entry 5248, upon which duty and internal revenue taxes again were paid. In view of the evidence presented, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon said 5 cases of cognac, not landed. The protest was sustained to this extent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Cust. Ct. 353, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duffield-distributing-co-v-united-states-cusc-1953.