Hoenecke v. United States

32 Cust. Ct. 465, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2009
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedApril 22, 1954
DocketNo. 58029; protest 129450-K (Minneapolis)
StatusPublished

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

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]*466and 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

Related

Gruen Watch Co. v. United States
24 Cust. Ct. 101 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 Cust. Ct. 465, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoenecke-v-united-states-cusc-1954.