Petition 6381-R of Cahn Bros. & Ryder, Inc.

U.S. Customs Court

Petition 6381-R of Cahn Bros. & Ryder, Inc.

14 Cust. Ct. 234

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedApril 2, 1945

DocketNo. 50115

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 Cust. Ct. 234 (Petition 6381-R of Cahn Bros. & Ryder, Inc.) 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 6381-R of Cahn Bros. & Ryder, Inc., 14 Cust. Ct. 234 (cusc 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It appeared from the record that the importer was notified by his customs broker, who made the entry herein, that the appraiser had no definite value for the merchandise and was advised by said broker to write his shipper in an endeavor to obtain information from them. The only reason given in the record for the importer not adopting the course suggested was that he felt sure that the value stated on the invoice was correct because that [235]*235was the amount paid for the merchandise. The United States examiner who passed the .importation testified that he was well acquainted with the broker in this case and that, in his opinion, there was no intent on the part of those concerned in this entry to deceive anyone. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that he did not know the importer. The court was of the opinion that the proof offered was not sufficient to warrant a finding in favor of the petitioner. The fact that the importer had paid the price shown on the invoice was held not a sufficient reason for his declining to take any steps to obtain information as to whether such price represented the statutory market value of the goods. (Taggesell Co. v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. 15, T. D. 43318, cited.) The petition was therefore denied.

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

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It appeared from the record that the importer was notified by his customs broker, who made the entry herein, that the appraiser had no definite value for the merchandise and was advised by said broker to write his shipper in an endeavor to obtain information from them. The only reason given in the record for the importer not adopting the course suggested was that he felt sure that the value stated on the invoice was correct because that [235]*235was the amount paid for the merchandise. The United States examiner who passed the .importation testified that he was well acquainted with the broker in this case and that, in his opinion, there was no intent on the part of those concerned in this entry to deceive anyone. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that he did not know the importer. The court was of the opinion that the proof offered was not sufficient to warrant a finding in favor of the petitioner. The fact that the importer had paid the price shown on the invoice was held not a sufficient reason for his declining to take any steps to obtain information as to whether such price represented the statutory market value of the goods. (Taggesell Co. v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. 15, T. D. 43318, cited.) The petition was therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Cust. Ct. 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petition-6381-r-of-cahn-bros-ryder-inc-cusc-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack