Hoenecke v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Hoenecke v. United States

32 Cust. Ct. 465, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2009

United States Customs Court·Decided April 22, 1954·No. No. 58029; protest 129450-K (Minneapolis)·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the appraisement of the merchandise and the liquidation of the entry were made in the same manner, under facts and circumstances the same in all material respects, as the appraisement [466] and liquidation in The Gruen Watch Company v. United States (24 Cust. Ct. 101, C. D. 1216). In accordance with stipulation and following the tited .authority, it was held that a legal liquidation should be had which would form the basis for a protest in which, should he so desire, the importer may litigate any question presented by such action under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.

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

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the appraisement of the merchandise and the liquidation of the entry were made in the same manner, under facts and circumstances the same in all material respects, as the appraisement [466] and liquidation in The Gruen Watch Company v. United States (24 Cust. Ct. 101, C. D. 1216). In accordance with stipulation and following the tited .authority, it was held that a legal liquidation should be had which would form the basis for a protest in which, should he so desire, the importer may litigate any question presented by such action under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.

Hoenecke v. United States, 32 Cust. Ct. 465, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2009 (cusc 1954).

Pincite

32 Cust. Ct. 465 (Hoenecke v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related