Holzer Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Holzer Co. v. United States

33 Cust. Ct. 369, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 807

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedSeptember 30, 1954

DocketNo. 58408; protest 166150-K (Philadelphia)

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Cust. Ct. 369 (Holzer 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.

Bluebook

Holzer Co. v. United States, 33 Cust. Ct. 369, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 807 (cusc 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Ekwall, Judge:

This case involves the rate at which the currency of the invoice, Swiss francs, should be converted into United States dollars under section 522 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The collector, in liquidation, adopted the “free” rate which plaintiff claims is illegal. Plaintiff contends that the “official” rate of exchange should have been used. '

At the hearing, it was stipulated that, in view of the CIE circular in evidence, the merchandise would be returned at the official rate of exchange. Upon this stipulation, together with the exhibit, the case was submitted.

In view of the agreement of counsel, we sustain plaintiff’s claim and hold that the “official” rate of exchange should have been used in-liquidation. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

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

Ekwall, Judge:

This case involves the rate at which the currency of the invoice, Swiss francs, should be converted into United States dollars under section 522 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The collector, in liquidation, adopted the “free” rate which plaintiff claims is illegal. Plaintiff contends that the “official” rate of exchange should have been used. '

At the hearing, it was stipulated that, in view of the CIE circular in evidence, the merchandise would be returned at the official rate of exchange. Upon this stipulation, together with the exhibit, the case was submitted.

In view of the agreement of counsel, we sustain plaintiff’s claim and hold that the “official” rate of exchange should have been used in-liquidation. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Cust. Ct. 369, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holzer-co-v-united-states-cusc-1954.