Goffigon v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Goffigon v. United States

32 Cust. Ct. 671, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2233

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 14, 1954

DocketA. R. D. 42; Entry Nos. W-190; W-191; W-166

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 Cust. Ct. 671 (Goffigon 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

Goffigon v. United States, 32 Cust. Ct. 671, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2233 (cusc 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

EKWALL, Judge:

This is an application for review of the decision of Ford, J., sitting in reappraisement, reported in 30 Cust. Ct. 563, Reap. Dec. 8229. From a decision in favor of the defendant below, plaintiff below appeals.

The merchandise consists of grated coconut in sirup. The trial judge, after a thorough discussion of the evidence produced, found that there was no proof that other exporters than the one here involved were not freely offering and selling this same coconut, within the requirements of the statute, at. prices equivalent to those found by the appraiser as the value of this merchandise. Based upon that finding, he held that the weight of the evidence was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the values [672]*672found by the appraiser, or to establish any other value for the merchandise. The appraised values were held to be the proper dutiable values in each instance.

When the case was argued before this division of the court on this application for review, counsel for appellant did not appear, but in a letter to the clerk of the court requested that the case be submitted on the brief filed in the court below and on the assignment of errors. At the oral argument, counsel for appellee moved that the application for review be dismissed on the ground that the assignment of errors presented no issues which are properly appealable, and on the further ground that said assignment of errors was not briefed nor argued at the hearing.

We find the motion to dismiss well founded. An examination of the assignment of errors discloses that it is such as could not have been covered by the brief filed before the trial court, nor do we find any authorities cited in support of the alleged errors. Moreover, the authorities hold that assignments of error not set out in briefs or not argued or supported by authorities are waived. See Fifth Decennial Digest (American Digest System, 1936 to 1946), volume 3, sec. 1078, pp. 1724, et seq.

In dismissing the application for review, we do so with no reluctance, since a careful perusal of the record discloses that the trial judge has properly evaluated the evidence presented before him.

The motion that the application for review be dismissed is, therefore, granted.

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

EKWALL, Judge:

This is an application for review of the decision of Ford, J., sitting in reappraisement, reported in 30 Cust. Ct. 563, Reap. Dec. 8229. From a decision in favor of the defendant below, plaintiff below appeals.

The merchandise consists of grated coconut in sirup. The trial judge, after a thorough discussion of the evidence produced, found that there was no proof that other exporters than the one here involved were not freely offering and selling this same coconut, within the requirements of the statute, at. prices equivalent to those found by the appraiser as the value of this merchandise. Based upon that finding, he held that the weight of the evidence was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the values [672]*672found by the appraiser, or to establish any other value for the merchandise. The appraised values were held to be the proper dutiable values in each instance.

When the case was argued before this division of the court on this application for review, counsel for appellant did not appear, but in a letter to the clerk of the court requested that the case be submitted on the brief filed in the court below and on the assignment of errors. At the oral argument, counsel for appellee moved that the application for review be dismissed on the ground that the assignment of errors presented no issues which are properly appealable, and on the further ground that said assignment of errors was not briefed nor argued at the hearing.

We find the motion to dismiss well founded. An examination of the assignment of errors discloses that it is such as could not have been covered by the brief filed before the trial court, nor do we find any authorities cited in support of the alleged errors. Moreover, the authorities hold that assignments of error not set out in briefs or not argued or supported by authorities are waived. See Fifth Decennial Digest (American Digest System, 1936 to 1946), volume 3, sec. 1078, pp. 1724, et seq.

In dismissing the application for review, we do so with no reluctance, since a careful perusal of the record discloses that the trial judge has properly evaluated the evidence presented before him.

The motion that the application for review be dismissed is, therefore, granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Cust. Ct. 671, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goffigon-v-united-states-cusc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack