Jones Bros. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Jones Bros. v. United States

26 Cust. Ct. 452, 1951 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 627

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJune 7, 1951

DocketNo. 55635; petition 6783-R (Boston)

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Cust. Ct. 452 (Jones Bros. 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

Jones Bros. v. United States, 26 Cust. Ct. 452, 1951 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 627 (cusc 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial petitioner’s witness testified that entry was made at the invoice price; that he understood at that time that the official price of granite for export from Finland had been raised; that no granite was available at that time at the higher price; that it would have taken 4 to 6 months to obtain granite then ordered at the higher price; and that he was advised by counsel that he might use the invoice price. Counsel for the Government stated that according to a report of an investigation made by the Customs Agency at Boston, petitioner had been entirely cooperative with customs officials with respect to this transaction and'had notified them of price changes. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.

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

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial petitioner’s witness testified that entry was made at the invoice price; that he understood at that time that the official price of granite for export from Finland had been raised; that no granite was available at that time at the higher price; that it would have taken 4 to 6 months to obtain granite then ordered at the higher price; and that he was advised by counsel that he might use the invoice price. Counsel for the Government stated that according to a report of an investigation made by the Customs Agency at Boston, petitioner had been entirely cooperative with customs officials with respect to this transaction and'had notified them of price changes. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Cust. Ct. 452, 1951 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-bros-v-united-states-cusc-1951.