Philip Blum & Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Philip Blum & Co. v. United States

20 Cust. Ct. 307, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 236

United States Customs Court·Decided April 22, 1948·No. No. 52287; protests 119695-K/456, etc. (Chicago)·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in United States v. Somerset (33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gaugers’ [308]*308returns as verified by tlie affidavits of the importers. The protests were sustained to this extent.

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in United States v. Somerset (33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gaugers’ [308]*308returns as verified by tlie affidavits of the importers. The protests were sustained to this extent.

Philip Blum & Co. v. United States, 20 Cust. Ct. 307, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 236 (cusc 1948).

Pincite

20 Cust. Ct. 307 (Philip Blum & Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.