Hermann Boker & Co. v. United States

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Hermann Boker & Co. v. United States

140 F. 115, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4769

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJune 1, 1905

DocketNo. 3,769

StatusPublished

This text of 140 F. 115 (Hermann Boker & Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hermann Boker & Co. v. United States, 140 F. 115, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4769 (circtsdny 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The sole question herein relates to the sufficiency of the protest. Duty was assessed under paragraph 137 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, 30 Stat. 161 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1639], at 45 per cent, ad valorem. The importer protested, stating-as follows: “We claim that the said goods are properly dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 137 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897.” The paragraph is a long one. The protest fails to state on what grounds the objection is made, or what rate of duty is claimed. It is therefore, insufficient, within the rule that “the importer shall set forth in his protest distinctly and specifically the reasons for his objections to the assessment.” U. S. v. Bayersdorfer, 126 Fed. 732, 62 C. C. A. 16.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

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

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The sole question herein relates to the sufficiency of the protest. Duty was assessed under paragraph 137 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, 30 Stat. 161 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1639], at 45 per cent, ad valorem. The importer protested, stating-as follows: “We claim that the said goods are properly dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 137 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897.” The paragraph is a long one. The protest fails to state on what grounds the objection is made, or what rate of duty is claimed. It is therefore, insufficient, within the rule that “the importer shall set forth in his protest distinctly and specifically the reasons for his objections to the assessment.” U. S. v. Bayersdorfer, 126 Fed. 732, 62 C. C. A. 16.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 F. 115, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hermann-boker-co-v-united-states-circtsdny-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack