Old Delft Optical Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Old Delft Optical Co. v. United States

47 Cust. Ct. 365

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedNovember 14, 1961

DocketNo. 66210; protest 60/18592 (New York)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 Cust. Ct. 365 (Old Delft Optical Co. 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

Old Delft Optical Co. v. United States, 47 Cust. Ct. 365 (cusc 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that no notice of appraisement was sent by the collector to the plaintiff and that the appraised value of the merchandise was higher than the entered value, the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)). United States v. James H. Rhodes & Co. (40 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 488), followed.

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

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that no notice of appraisement was sent by the collector to the plaintiff and that the appraised value of the merchandise was higher than the entered value, the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)). United States v. James H. Rhodes & Co. (40 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 488), followed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Cust. Ct. 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/old-delft-optical-co-v-united-states-cusc-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack