James H. Rhodes & Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

James H. Rhodes & Co. v. United States

39 Cust. Ct. 474

United States Customs Court·Decided October 30, 1957·No. No. 61308; protest 288857-K (New York)·Published

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.

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

Pincite

39 Cust. Ct. 474 (James H. Rhodes & Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related