Jersey City Stores, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Jersey City Stores, Inc. v. United States

20 Cust. Ct. 254, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 83

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJanuary 21, 1948

DocketNo. 52134; protest 133106-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Cust. Ct. 254 (Jersey City Stores, Inc. 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

Jersey City Stores, Inc. v. United States, 20 Cust. Ct. 254, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 83 (cusc 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

From the official papers it appeared that the plaintiff was not the proper party to file a protest under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, since it was not the importer, consignee, or agent of any party paying any exaction of the kind covered by said section, but was a warehouse corporation protesting the distribution on the part of the collector of the proceeds of a sale at public auction of abandoned merchandise which had been sent to general order. In the absence of an entry, the collector after the sale-retained the duties on the merchandise to which he had prior claim under section 564 and paid a certain portion of the storage charges claimed by the warehouse corporation. On the record presented, the motion to dismiss was granted. Gibraltar Warehouses v. United States (68 Treas. Dec. 400, T. D. 47933) and Rapken & Co., Ltd. v. United States (72 id. 35, T. D. 49058) followed.

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

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

From the official papers it appeared that the plaintiff was not the proper party to file a protest under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, since it was not the importer, consignee, or agent of any party paying any exaction of the kind covered by said section, but was a warehouse corporation protesting the distribution on the part of the collector of the proceeds of a sale at public auction of abandoned merchandise which had been sent to general order. In the absence of an entry, the collector after the sale-retained the duties on the merchandise to which he had prior claim under section 564 and paid a certain portion of the storage charges claimed by the warehouse corporation. On the record presented, the motion to dismiss was granted. Gibraltar Warehouses v. United States (68 Treas. Dec. 400, T. D. 47933) and Rapken & Co., Ltd. v. United States (72 id. 35, T. D. 49058) followed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Cust. Ct. 254, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jersey-city-stores-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1948.