James H. Rhodes & Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

James H. Rhodes & Co. v. United States

39 Cust. Ct. 474

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedOctober 30, 1957

DocketNo. 61308; protest 288857-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 39 Cust. Ct. 474 (James H. Rhodes & 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

James H. Rhodes & Co. v. United States, 39 Cust. Ct. 474 (cusc 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance withforal stipulation of counsel that the facts contained in the letter of the collector, dated April 5, 1956, stating that “the dutiable value was inadvertently based on the original appraised units of value instead of the invoice units, as ordered” by the court in James H. Rhodes & Co. v. United States (33 Cust. Ct. 518, Reap. Dec. 8330) are true and correct, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

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

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance withforal stipulation of counsel that the facts contained in the letter of the collector, dated April 5, 1956, stating that “the dutiable value was inadvertently based on the original appraised units of value instead of the invoice units, as ordered” by the court in James H. Rhodes & Co. v. United States (33 Cust. Ct. 518, Reap. Dec. 8330) are true and correct, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Cust. Ct. 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-h-rhodes-co-v-united-states-cusc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack