Eelsingh v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Eelsingh v. United States

32 Cust. Ct. 367, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1737

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJanuary 7, 1954

DocketNo. 57756; protest 196704-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Cust. Ct. 367 (Eelsingh 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

Eelsingh v. United States, 32 Cust. Ct. 367, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1737 (cusc 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, one of the owners of the plaintiff testified that the shipment had been received more than a year and a half ago and that no notice was received of a discrepancy in weight. The importer was unable to supply any additional facts as to the proper weight except to say that it was bought, paid for, and sold upon the basis of 780 pounds. Counsel for the Government moved in evidence the collector’s letter, the surveyor’s special report, and all the official papers in the case. The surveyor reported that 5 cases were weighed in one truckload on a Government electric platform scale; that the gross weight was 1,030; and that, as the actual tare could not be ascertained on the pier, the invoice tare of 234 pounds was applied in accordance with the regulations, which left a total net weight of 796 pounds. In view of such report, the collector affirmed his action. Inasmuch as the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action was not overcome, the court was constrained to overrule the protest.

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, one of the owners of the plaintiff testified that the shipment had been received more than a year and a half ago and that no notice was received of a discrepancy in weight. The importer was unable to supply any additional facts as to the proper weight except to say that it was bought, paid for, and sold upon the basis of 780 pounds. Counsel for the Government moved in evidence the collector’s letter, the surveyor’s special report, and all the official papers in the case. The surveyor reported that 5 cases were weighed in one truckload on a Government electric platform scale; that the gross weight was 1,030; and that, as the actual tare could not be ascertained on the pier, the invoice tare of 234 pounds was applied in accordance with the regulations, which left a total net weight of 796 pounds. In view of such report, the collector affirmed his action. Inasmuch as the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action was not overcome, the court was constrained to overrule the protest.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Cust. Ct. 367, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eelsingh-v-united-states-cusc-1954.