Petition 6412-R of Kluyskens

U.S. Customs Court

Petition 6412-R of Kluyskens

16 Cust. Ct. 251

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedApril 3, 1946

DocketNo. 50982

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Cust. Ct. 251 (Petition 6412-R of Kluyskens) 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 6412-R of Kluyskens, 16 Cust. Ct. 251 (cusc 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The attorney for the Government moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it did not comply with the requirements of rule 29 of the Customs Court in that it contained no statement of facts showing what petitioner intended to prove. This motion, taken under advisement, was denied, following United States v. Macy (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 245, T. D. 41199) and Abstract 40459. From the record it appeared that the petitioner knew that similar merchandise had a higher market value but did not disclose the information to the appraiser. The petitioner’s position was that the cables and correspondence exchanged between petitioner and the exporter pertaining to this particular shipment did not state that a definite advance would be made on all shipments but simply indicated a possibility. It was held that it is the duty of a petitioner when he makes entry to give to the appraising officer all information which he may possess as to the dutiable value of the goods covered by the entry. (National Biscuit Co. v. United States, 20 C. C. P. A. 395, T. D. 46187, followed.) The petition was therefore denied.

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

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The attorney for the Government moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it did not comply with the requirements of rule 29 of the Customs Court in that it contained no statement of facts showing what petitioner intended to prove. This motion, taken under advisement, was denied, following United States v. Macy (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 245, T. D. 41199) and Abstract 40459. From the record it appeared that the petitioner knew that similar merchandise had a higher market value but did not disclose the information to the appraiser. The petitioner’s position was that the cables and correspondence exchanged between petitioner and the exporter pertaining to this particular shipment did not state that a definite advance would be made on all shipments but simply indicated a possibility. It was held that it is the duty of a petitioner when he makes entry to give to the appraising officer all information which he may possess as to the dutiable value of the goods covered by the entry. (National Biscuit Co. v. United States, 20 C. C. P. A. 395, T. D. 46187, followed.) The petition was therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Cust. Ct. 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petition-6412-r-of-kluyskens-cusc-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack