Home/U.S. Customs Court/Nozaki Bros. v. United States

Nozaki Bros. v. United States

41 Cust. Ct. 245
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedNovember 26, 1958
DocketC. D. 2048
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 41 Cust. Ct. 245 (Nozaki 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
Nozaki Bros. v. United States, 41 Cust. Ct. 245 (cusc 1958).

Opinions

Richabdson, Judge:

These^four consolidated cases involving Japanese canned clams are before us a second time, having been restored to the calendar by the order of this court for the production of further evidence. See Nozaki Bros. Inc., and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, 36 Cust. Ct. 398, Abstract 59833.

The action arose as a result of the failure of the collector at the port of Los Angeles to use as a basis for the assessment of duties in liquidation, the dutiable value of the merchandise as found by this court in reappraisement proceedings. These values were incorporated in a decision and judgment, dated December 2, 1952, entitled Pacific Trading Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, 29 Cust. Ct. 501, Reap. Dec. 8179.

At the original hearing of the cause, it was established that after the decision and judgment in the aforementioned reappraisement proceedings had been transmitted to the collector, a clerk in the customs service, whose duty it was to note the judgment of the court on the records of the collector, erroneously stamped the involved entries and the invoice summary sheets to indicate that the reappraisement appeals had been dismissed. We append hereto a photostatic copy of the judgment of the United States Customs Court involved herein. The collector later proceeded to liquidate the entries using as the dutiable value of the merchandise, the value as found by the appraiser. The liquidations took place between the dates of May 14 and July 15, 1953.

The plaintiffs did not protest the liquidations within 60 days thereafter, but considered the erroneous action of the clerk in stamping the entries “dismissed” to be a clerical error, and requested correction thereof by way of reliquidation of the entries pursuant to 19 U. S. C. section 1520 (c) (1) (§ 520 (ci) (1) of the Tariff Act of 1930), as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1953. That section of the act

[247]*247

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

Related

United Asia Trading Co. v. United States
55 Cust. Ct. 261 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)
C. O. Mason, Inc. v. United States
49 Cust. Ct. 89 (U.S. Customs Court, 1962)
Close v. United States
47 Cust. Ct. 370 (U.S. Customs Court, 1961)
Whitaker ex rel. Account of Volkart Bros. v. United States
43 Cust. Ct. 437 (U.S. Customs Court, 1959)
Lekas & Drivas, Inc. v. United States
41 Cust. Ct. 413 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 Cust. Ct. 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nozaki-bros-v-united-states-cusc-1958.