Milton Snedeker Corp. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Milton Snedeker Corp. v. United States

22 Cust. Ct. 241, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1337

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1949

DocketNo. 52875; petitions 6633-R and 6680-R (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Cust. Ct. 241 (Milton Snedeker Corp. 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

Milton Snedeker Corp. v. United States, 22 Cust. Ct. 241, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1337 (cusc 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cole, J.

At the trial petitioner’s witness testified that prior to entry the petitioner had communicated with the Canadian manufacturer for information concerning prevailing prices in the foreign market. The reply letter (exhibit 1) received from the exporter was submitted to the customs examiner who advised entry on the basis of the invoice values, the prices paid for the merchandise, which values petitioner used in making the entries. Later, after the entries had come under the observation of the appraiser, the entered values were rejected by customs officials. Ultimately, appeals for reappraisement were decided on agreed sets of facts establishing higher values to be the proper dutiable values. (Reap. Decs. 7183 and 7203.) From the record presented the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise under consideration was without 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 petitions were therefore granted.

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

Opinion by

Cole, J.

At the trial petitioner’s witness testified that prior to entry the petitioner had communicated with the Canadian manufacturer for information concerning prevailing prices in the foreign market. The reply letter (exhibit 1) received from the exporter was submitted to the customs examiner who advised entry on the basis of the invoice values, the prices paid for the merchandise, which values petitioner used in making the entries. Later, after the entries had come under the observation of the appraiser, the entered values were rejected by customs officials. Ultimately, appeals for reappraisement were decided on agreed sets of facts establishing higher values to be the proper dutiable values. (Reap. Decs. 7183 and 7203.) From the record presented the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise under consideration was without 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 petitions were therefore granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Cust. Ct. 241, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milton-snedeker-corp-v-united-states-cusc-1949.