Importers Sales Agents v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Importers Sales Agents v. United States

35 Cust. Ct. 345

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1955

DocketNo. 59558; protests 171454-K and 171455-K (Los Angeles)

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 35 Cust. Ct. 345 (Importers Sales Agents 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

Importers Sales Agents v. United States, 35 Cust. Ct. 345 (cusc 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Ekwall, Judge:

These two cases have been consolidated. They involve importations of flavoring extract upon which customs duties were assessed under the provisions of paragraph 24 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and also internal revenue tax under authority of section 2800 (a) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Revenue Act of 1943. Plaintiffs claim that the internal revenue tax was improperly applied.

When the cases were called for hearing at the port of Los Angeles, Calif., Government counsel moved to dismiss on the ground that the duties and charges had not been paid. (Section 515, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. §1515).) The motion was denied by the court, upon the ground that said section 515 is limited to cases of merchandise entered for consumption and that the statute contains no provision requiring that duties and charges must be paid as a condition precedent to filing protests in cases of warehouse entries.

Thereafter, the cases were continued from time to time and have now been submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs upon a statement in open court that he was unable to obtain any evidence and did not expect to be able to obtain any. The cases were, therefore, dismissed for lack of prosecution. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

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

Ekwall, Judge:

These two cases have been consolidated. They involve importations of flavoring extract upon which customs duties were assessed under the provisions of paragraph 24 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and also internal revenue tax under authority of section 2800 (a) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Revenue Act of 1943. Plaintiffs claim that the internal revenue tax was improperly applied.

When the cases were called for hearing at the port of Los Angeles, Calif., Government counsel moved to dismiss on the ground that the duties and charges had not been paid. (Section 515, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. §1515).) The motion was denied by the court, upon the ground that said section 515 is limited to cases of merchandise entered for consumption and that the statute contains no provision requiring that duties and charges must be paid as a condition precedent to filing protests in cases of warehouse entries.

Thereafter, the cases were continued from time to time and have now been submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs upon a statement in open court that he was unable to obtain any evidence and did not expect to be able to obtain any. The cases were, therefore, dismissed for lack of prosecution. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Cust. Ct. 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/importers-sales-agents-v-united-states-cusc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack