Failde v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Failde v. United States

28 Cust. Ct. 456, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 420

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedApril 22, 1952

DocketNo. 56580; petition 6841-R (Tampa)

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Cust. Ct. 456 (Failde 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

Failde v. United States, 28 Cust. Ct. 456, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 420 (cusc 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From the evidence it appeared that before filing the entry, the petitioner, who was the broker, endeavored to ascertain.through the customs authorities whether or not the invoice value of the motorcycles was the proper value thereof. The petitioner was subsequently informed that the value should be increased, and time was allowed for the amendment of the entry. However, before she was able to locate her principal and obtain the additional amount of money required to cover the duty upon the increased entered value, the time for amendment of the entry had elapsed. On the record presented it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From the evidence it appeared that before filing the entry, the petitioner, who was the broker, endeavored to ascertain.through the customs authorities whether or not the invoice value of the motorcycles was the proper value thereof. The petitioner was subsequently informed that the value should be increased, and time was allowed for the amendment of the entry. However, before she was able to locate her principal and obtain the additional amount of money required to cover the duty upon the increased entered value, the time for amendment of the entry had elapsed. On the record presented it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Cust. Ct. 456, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/failde-v-united-states-cusc-1952.