Dulien Steel Products, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Dulien Steel Products, Inc. v. United States

32 Cust. Ct. 362, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1336

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedDecember 30, 1953

DocketNo. 57731; protest 183327-K (Los Angeles)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 Cust. Ct. 362 (Dulien Steel Products, 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

Dulien Steel Products, Inc. v. United States, 32 Cust. Ct. 362, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1336 (cusc 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, the chief liquidator testified that, although not with the entry, the record papers would indicate that the affidavit of the owner, importer, or consignee on customs Form 3311 had been filed. He further testified that the collector’s office was satisfied that the merchandise was of American manufacture and that no drawback had been claimed or paid upon exportation. It was orally stipulated that three items, one universal cruiser crane, designated as SA or SN-69-57, seven truck cranes, designated SA-50-Eng. 2 to 8, and one truck crane, designated SA-50-E-10 or 15, are of domestic manufacture, having been exported to the United States and returned without having been advanced in value or improved in condition. On the record presented and following Abstract 47521, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained as to the above-described items.

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, the chief liquidator testified that, although not with the entry, the record papers would indicate that the affidavit of the owner, importer, or consignee on customs Form 3311 had been filed. He further testified that the collector’s office was satisfied that the merchandise was of American manufacture and that no drawback had been claimed or paid upon exportation. It was orally stipulated that three items, one universal cruiser crane, designated as SA or SN-69-57, seven truck cranes, designated SA-50-Eng. 2 to 8, and one truck crane, designated SA-50-E-10 or 15, are of domestic manufacture, having been exported to the United States and returned without having been advanced in value or improved in condition. On the record presented and following Abstract 47521, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained as to the above-described items.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Cust. Ct. 362, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dulien-steel-products-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack