James v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

James v. United States

54 Cust. Ct. 674, 1965 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2450

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 20, 1965

DocketReap. Dec. 10988; Entry No. 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 54 Cust. Ct. 674 (James 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 v. United States, 54 Cust. Ct. 674, 1965 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2450 (cusc 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Rao, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of certain elastic bandages which were appraised at the invoice unit values, less items identified as insurance, ocean freight, charges at Savannah, and United States customs duties, packed. Apparently, it is the contention [675]*675of plaintiff that tbe items invoiced as “Inland freight” and “Charges” should also have been deducted from the appraised value.

At the trial of this action, plaintiff, appearing in his own behalf, introduced into evidence as plaintiff’s exhibit 1, a letter from the German manufacturer of the subject merchandise to the appraiser of merchandise at the port of Savannah, wherein the proposed classification of the merchandise is protested.

Since the letter contains no proof with respect to the value of the subject bandages and no other evidence has been submitted on behalf of plaintiff, the presumption of correctness of the appraiser’s finding of value has not been overcome. The values returned by the appraiser are, therefore, held to be the values of the various items of merchandise covered by this appeal for reappraisement.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

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

Rao, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of certain elastic bandages which were appraised at the invoice unit values, less items identified as insurance, ocean freight, charges at Savannah, and United States customs duties, packed. Apparently, it is the contention [675]*675of plaintiff that tbe items invoiced as “Inland freight” and “Charges” should also have been deducted from the appraised value.

At the trial of this action, plaintiff, appearing in his own behalf, introduced into evidence as plaintiff’s exhibit 1, a letter from the German manufacturer of the subject merchandise to the appraiser of merchandise at the port of Savannah, wherein the proposed classification of the merchandise is protested.

Since the letter contains no proof with respect to the value of the subject bandages and no other evidence has been submitted on behalf of plaintiff, the presumption of correctness of the appraiser’s finding of value has not been overcome. The values returned by the appraiser are, therefore, held to be the values of the various items of merchandise covered by this appeal for reappraisement.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Cust. Ct. 674, 1965 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-united-states-cusc-1965.