J. S. Carulli Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

J. S. Carulli Co. v. United States

28 Cust. Ct. 414, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 286

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1952

DocketNo. 56446; protest 169742-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Cust. Ct. 414 (J. S. Carulli 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. S. Carulli Co. v. United States, 28 Cust. Ct. 414, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 286 (cusc 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial a witness for the plaintiff testified that bale No. 175, reported by the discharging inspector as “manifested not found,” was not in fact received by the importer. In view of the evidence in this case and following United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portion of the merchandise as was reported by the inspector as manifested not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial a witness for the plaintiff testified that bale No. 175, reported by the discharging inspector as “manifested not found,” was not in fact received by the importer. In view of the evidence in this case and following United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portion of the merchandise as was reported by the inspector as manifested not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Cust. Ct. 414, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-s-carulli-co-v-united-states-cusc-1952.