Hin Yuen Hing v. United States

24 Cust. Ct. 370, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1654
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1950
DocketNo. 54029; petition 6637-R (Los Angeles)
StatusPublished

This text of 24 Cust. Ct. 370 (Hin Yuen Hing 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
Hin Yuen Hing v. United States, 24 Cust. Ct. 370, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1654 (cusc 1950).

Opinion

Opinion by

Cline, J.

From the record it was apparent that no one made any attempt to ascertain whether the invoice values were the proper dutiable values, although one of the partners of the importing firm was in Hong Kong at the time of entry and could have obtained information as to the market prices there. It has been held that “the entrant of merchandise owes a duty to inform himself as to the correctness of his representations as to the value of his merchandise and that a showing of indifference to its proper value does not meet the requirements of satisfactory proof under the statute.” R. W. Gresham v. United States (27 C. C. P. A. 106, C. A. D. 70), National Silk Spinning Co., Inc. v. United States (28 C. C. P. A. 24, C. A. D. 119), and United States v. H. S. Dorf & Co. of Pa., Inc. (36 C. C. P. A. 29, C. A. D. 392), cited. On the record presented it was held [371]*371that petitioners have not sustained the burden of proving that in making the entry such good faith was exercised as is required by the statute. Kachurin Drug Co. v. United States (26 C. C. P. A. 356, C. A. D. 41), followed. The petition was therefore denied.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Cust. Ct. 370, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hin-yuen-hing-v-united-states-cusc-1950.