Petition 6124-R of Falk

U.S. Customs Court

Petition 6124-R of Falk

10 Cust. Ct. 399

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedFebruary 17, 1943

DocketNo. 48033

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Cust. Ct. 399 (Petition 6124-R of Falk) 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

Petition 6124-R of Falk, 10 Cust. Ct. 399 (cusc 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petitioner testified that she imported an iron cot with spring and mattress and some other goods and that when the invoice arrived she sent it to her customs broker to make entry. It appeared from the testimony of the customs broker that in making entry he deducted from the value of certain [400]*400upholstery cloth the values of the cotton mattress and cushions which were, in fact, included in the value of the spring mattress, but that the total on the entry was the same as the total value of the invoice, and that his action was due to the joint understanding between himself, and the appraiser. The collector assessed 14 percent additional duties. It was found that the petitioner in making entry acted without intention to misrepresent the facts, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise, dr to defraud the revenue of the United States. The petition was therefore granted.

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

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petitioner testified that she imported an iron cot with spring and mattress and some other goods and that when the invoice arrived she sent it to her customs broker to make entry. It appeared from the testimony of the customs broker that in making entry he deducted from the value of certain [400]*400upholstery cloth the values of the cotton mattress and cushions which were, in fact, included in the value of the spring mattress, but that the total on the entry was the same as the total value of the invoice, and that his action was due to the joint understanding between himself, and the appraiser. The collector assessed 14 percent additional duties. It was found that the petitioner in making entry acted without intention to misrepresent the facts, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise, dr to defraud the revenue of the United States. The petition was therefore granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Cust. Ct. 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petition-6124-r-of-falk-cusc-1943.