Petition 6194-R of Yardley & Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Petition 6194-R of Yardley & Co.

8 Cust. Ct. 524

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 21, 1942

DocketNo. 47213

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Cust. Ct. 524 (Petition 6194-R of Yardley & Co.) 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 6194-R of Yardley & Co., 8 Cust. Ct. 524 (cusc 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cline, J.

From the testimony it was found that the customs broker who testified in this case consulted with the customs examiner before entering the merchandise and submitted-tp the appraiser the information sheet which is attached to the papers in the case. It appeared that-the.appraiser took the position that the merchandise should be entered on the basis of decisions wherein the shipper was considered as a manufacturer of the goods and appraisement made on the basis of cost of production. (United States v. Guerlain, Inc., 28 C. C. P. A. 200, C. A. D. 146.) The witness did not agree with this.contention, and when the goods were advanced he authorized an appeal to reappraisement. He went abroad to secure information but it was impossible to find the cost of producing the bottle caps, so the issue was abandoned as to the bottle caps and the case was limited to the issue on the value of the bottles. He also stated that he gave all the evidence to the customs examiner and did not withhold any information concerning the shipments. On the record presented and following Abstracts 42630, 42631 and Alex Schechter Corp. v. United States (4 Cust. Ct. 17, C. D. 272) it was held that the entry was made in good faith. 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.

From the testimony it was found that the customs broker who testified in this case consulted with the customs examiner before entering the merchandise and submitted-tp the appraiser the information sheet which is attached to the papers in the case. It appeared that-the.appraiser took the position that the merchandise should be entered on the basis of decisions wherein the shipper was considered as a manufacturer of the goods and appraisement made on the basis of cost of production. (United States v. Guerlain, Inc., 28 C. C. P. A. 200, C. A. D. 146.) The witness did not agree with this.contention, and when the goods were advanced he authorized an appeal to reappraisement. He went abroad to secure information but it was impossible to find the cost of producing the bottle caps, so the issue was abandoned as to the bottle caps and the case was limited to the issue on the value of the bottles. He also stated that he gave all the evidence to the customs examiner and did not withhold any information concerning the shipments. On the record presented and following Abstracts 42630, 42631 and Alex Schechter Corp. v. United States (4 Cust. Ct. 17, C. D. 272) it was held that the entry was made in good faith. The petition was therefore granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Cust. Ct. 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petition-6194-r-of-yardley-co-cusc-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack