Hipage Co. v. United States
This text of 28 Cust. Ct. 381 (Hipage 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.
Opinion
[382]*382Opinion by
The merchandise was entered at the total invoiced amount, less certain enumerated costs, except “Value outside packs and packing.” Although not stated on the invoice, it appeared that certain items representing commission, insurance, and bill of lading had been deducted from the total invoice amount, but were included in the invoice unit price. The merchandise was appraised at the invoice unit price, less the charges for consular fee, freight to Norfolk, and cost of loading, packed, which resulted in an advance in value. At the trial petitioner’s witness testified that the petitioner had been misled by the failure of the invoice to indicate the items of commission, insurance, and bill of lading, and by the belief that the items of inland freight and inland insurance were nondutiable, into adopting the invoice total amount as to the basis for entry. 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
28 Cust. Ct. 381, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hipage-co-v-united-states-cusc-1952.