Petitions 6274-R of New York Merchandise Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Petitions 6274-R of New York Merchandise Co.

13 Cust. Ct. 295

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedOctober 16, 1944

DocketNo. 49757

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Cust. Ct. 295 (Petitions 6274-R of New York Merchandise 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

Petitions 6274-R of New York Merchandise Co., 13 Cust. Ct. 295 (cusc 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cole, J.

These cases were the subject of appeals to reappraisement (Reap. Dec. 5551 and 5789), the court sustaining in both cases the higher value found by the appraiser, and it is the additional duties accruing from such findings that are sought herein on motion of petitioner. From the testimony presented at the trial it was found, in view of United States v. American Metal Co., Ltd. (12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 440, T. D. 40612) and United States v. Macy & Co. (13 id. 245, T. D. 41199), that the petitioner has met its statutory burden. The case cited (Ringling Bros., Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. United States, 31 C. C. P. A. 191, C. A. D. 272) by the respondent was found to present an entirely different factual basis from that adduced herein and therefore is not applicable to the cases involved here. The petitions were therefore granted.

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

Opinion by

Cole, J.

These cases were the subject of appeals to reappraisement (Reap. Dec. 5551 and 5789), the court sustaining in both cases the higher value found by the appraiser, and it is the additional duties accruing from such findings that are sought herein on motion of petitioner. From the testimony presented at the trial it was found, in view of United States v. American Metal Co., Ltd. (12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 440, T. D. 40612) and United States v. Macy & Co. (13 id. 245, T. D. 41199), that the petitioner has met its statutory burden. The case cited (Ringling Bros., Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. United States, 31 C. C. P. A. 191, C. A. D. 272) by the respondent was found to present an entirely different factual basis from that adduced herein and therefore is not applicable to the cases involved here. The petitions were therefore granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Cust. Ct. 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petitions-6274-r-of-new-york-merchandise-co-cusc-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack