Hopson v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Hopson v. United States

24 Cust. Ct. 326, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1496

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJanuary 5, 1950

DocketNo. 53870; petition 6702-R (Tampa)

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Cust. Ct. 326 (Hopson 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

Hopson v. United States, 24 Cust. Ct. 326, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1496 (cusc 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial the petitioner testified that large quantities of these gloves were purchased and entered at the same price and that the six entries in question were the only importations advanced in, value; that he had discussed the value of gloves on several occasions with customs officials; and that upon his investigation in the Cuban markets he found he was paying 50 cents a dozen more than the home value. Later, petitioner was given an opportunity to amend the entries, but he did not receive notice from the broker until about 3 days before the limit of time set for amendment. Before he could ascertain from the broker what the trouble was, the time to amend had passed. In view of the evidence presented, it was held that the petitioner showed good faith in entering the goods as he did and was entirely without intent to defraud the revenue or deceive the appraiser. The petition was therefore granted.

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial the petitioner testified that large quantities of these gloves were purchased and entered at the same price and that the six entries in question were the only importations advanced in, value; that he had discussed the value of gloves on several occasions with customs officials; and that upon his investigation in the Cuban markets he found he was paying 50 cents a dozen more than the home value. Later, petitioner was given an opportunity to amend the entries, but he did not receive notice from the broker until about 3 days before the limit of time set for amendment. Before he could ascertain from the broker what the trouble was, the time to amend had passed. In view of the evidence presented, it was held that the petitioner showed good faith in entering the goods as he did and was entirely without intent to defraud the revenue or deceive the appraiser. The petition was therefore granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Cust. Ct. 326, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopson-v-united-states-cusc-1950.