L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. United States

24 Cust. Ct. 370, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1653

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1950

DocketNo. 54028; petition 6757-R (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Cust. Ct. 370 (L. Batlin & Son, 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

L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. United States, 24 Cust. Ct. 370, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1653 (cusc 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The customs broker who made the entry herein testified that at the time of the arrival of the merchandise he submitted to the appraiser a request for information, and when the same was returned to him, he misunderstood the appraiser’s request for a change in prices, deducting from the new prices suggested by the appraiser, the inland charges of cartage, inland freight, and insurance. When the appraiser advised him that the charges had been erroneously deducted, he filed an amended entry on or about September 20, 1948. The merchandise was appraised on December 29, 1948. The amended entry was disregarded by the appraiser for the reason that prior to the time of its acceptance the invoice and the merchandise had come under the observation of the appraiser for purposes of appraisement. Upon a full consideration of the entire record, it was held that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intent 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

Rao, J.

The customs broker who made the entry herein testified that at the time of the arrival of the merchandise he submitted to the appraiser a request for information, and when the same was returned to him, he misunderstood the appraiser’s request for a change in prices, deducting from the new prices suggested by the appraiser, the inland charges of cartage, inland freight, and insurance. When the appraiser advised him that the charges had been erroneously deducted, he filed an amended entry on or about September 20, 1948. The merchandise was appraised on December 29, 1948. The amended entry was disregarded by the appraiser for the reason that prior to the time of its acceptance the invoice and the merchandise had come under the observation of the appraiser for purposes of appraisement. Upon a full consideration of the entire record, it was held that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intent 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)

24 Cust. Ct. 370, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-batlin-son-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1950.