Petition 5887-R of Dwoskin

U.S. Customs Court

Petition 5887-R of Dwoskin

7 Cust. Ct. 249

United States Customs Court·Decided July 30, 1941·No. No. 46225·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

This ease involved a discount of 10 percent allowed to the importers. The Government contends that the petitioners did not exercise due diligence in ascertaining the correct dutiable value of the merchandise, citing Lowe v. United States (15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 418, T. D. 42590) and Mitsubishi v. United States (19 C. C. P. A. 91, T. D. 45227). However, from the record and following United States v. Fish, 268 U. S. 607, the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise at less than the final appraisement was without any intention, to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case. The petition was therefore granted.

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

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

This ease involved a discount of 10 percent allowed to the importers. The Government contends that the petitioners did not exercise due diligence in ascertaining the correct dutiable value of the merchandise, citing Lowe v. United States (15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 418, T. D. 42590) and Mitsubishi v. United States (19 C. C. P. A. 91, T. D. 45227). However, from the record and following United States v. Fish, 268 U. S. 607, the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise at less than the final appraisement was without any intention, to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case. The petition was therefore granted.

Petition 5887-R of Dwoskin, 7 Cust. Ct. 249 (cusc 1941).

Pincite

7 Cust. Ct. 249 (Petition 5887-R of Dwoskin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related