Macartney v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Macartney v. United States

20 Cust. Ct. 248, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 56

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJanuary 8, 1948

DocketNo. 52107; petition 6513-R (Duluth)

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Cust. Ct. 248 (Macartney 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

Macartney v. United States, 20 Cust. Ct. 248, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 56 (cusc 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

[249]*249Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the petitioner testified that he was a licensed ■customhouse broker, the entries herein haying been under his direction; that the entered values were the invoice values which he believed to be correct; that, in accordance with the practice lor many years, he thought he would be given an opportunity to amend if the appraiser disagreed with the entered values; and that when a new appraiser was appointed the practice was changed and no opportunity to amend was given. On the record presented the court 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

[249]*249Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the petitioner testified that he was a licensed ■customhouse broker, the entries herein haying been under his direction; that the entered values were the invoice values which he believed to be correct; that, in accordance with the practice lor many years, he thought he would be given an opportunity to amend if the appraiser disagreed with the entered values; and that when a new appraiser was appointed the practice was changed and no opportunity to amend was given. On the record presented the court 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)

20 Cust. Ct. 248, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macartney-v-united-states-cusc-1948.