J. L. Hammett Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

J. L. Hammett Co. v. United States

30 Cust. Ct. 346, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 109

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1953

DocketNo. 57079; petitions 6868-R and 6916-R (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Cust. Ct. 346 (J. L. Hammett 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

J. L. Hammett Co. v. United States, 30 Cust. Ct. 346, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 109 (cusc 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Ford, J.

It appeared from the record that the merchandise involved had been imported by petitioner from 1903 to the present time; that it was always entered at the invoice prices, less nondutiable charges; that the customs officials had never raised any question as to such value until the importations here involved; and that numerous conferences were had by the customhouse brokers and the petitioner’s attorney with the customs officials prior to making the entries in an effort to ascertain the correct value at which the merchandise should be entered. A representative' from each of the customhouse brokerage firms making the entries testified that a so-called submission sheet was submitted to the customs officials in the case of both entries and that they made available to said officials all papers as well as other information in their possession. Based upon all the facts disclosed by the record, it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petitions were therefore granted. (United, States v. Fish, 268 U. S. 607, and Linen Thread Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 395, T. D. 41322.)

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

Opinion by

Ford, J.

It appeared from the record that the merchandise involved had been imported by petitioner from 1903 to the present time; that it was always entered at the invoice prices, less nondutiable charges; that the customs officials had never raised any question as to such value until the importations here involved; and that numerous conferences were had by the customhouse brokers and the petitioner’s attorney with the customs officials prior to making the entries in an effort to ascertain the correct value at which the merchandise should be entered. A representative' from each of the customhouse brokerage firms making the entries testified that a so-called submission sheet was submitted to the customs officials in the case of both entries and that they made available to said officials all papers as well as other information in their possession. Based upon all the facts disclosed by the record, it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petitions were therefore granted. (United, States v. Fish, 268 U. S. 607, and Linen Thread Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 395, T. D. 41322.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Cust. Ct. 346, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-l-hammett-co-v-united-states-cusc-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack