H. B. Rosenberg Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

H. B. Rosenberg Co. v. United States

27 Cust. Ct. 347, 1951 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1166

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedNovember 13, 1951

DocketNo. 55995; petition 6816-R (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Cust. Ct. 347 (H. B. Rosenberg 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

H. B. Rosenberg Co. v. United States, 27 Cust. Ct. 347, 1951 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1166 (cusc 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the import manager of the customs broker testified that prior to entry, he requested the importer to furnish information with’ [348]*348respect to the value of the merchandise, which information was submitted to the appraiser; that the merchandise was first entered as of American origin but it was later entered as foreign merchandise because, being feathers, it was hard to identify; that his office subsequently received a notice from the appraiser to amend the entry with instructions stating: “All 3 cases less nondutiable charges, • as per consular invoice”; that one of his entry clerks made up the amendment on the basis of these instructions, and it was found that there would be a 60-cent refund; that he called the examiner who said to forget about it; and that he later received a notice of advance in value, due to the addition of the so-called non-dutiable charges. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case 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

Cline, J.

At the trial the import manager of the customs broker testified that prior to entry, he requested the importer to furnish information with’ [348]*348respect to the value of the merchandise, which information was submitted to the appraiser; that the merchandise was first entered as of American origin but it was later entered as foreign merchandise because, being feathers, it was hard to identify; that his office subsequently received a notice from the appraiser to amend the entry with instructions stating: “All 3 cases less nondutiable charges, • as per consular invoice”; that one of his entry clerks made up the amendment on the basis of these instructions, and it was found that there would be a 60-cent refund; that he called the examiner who said to forget about it; and that he later received a notice of advance in value, due to the addition of the so-called non-dutiable charges. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Cust. Ct. 347, 1951 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-b-rosenberg-co-v-united-states-cusc-1951.