Pressner v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Pressner v. United States

32 Cust. Ct. 385, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1783

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJanuary 26, 1954

DocketNo. 57802; protest 210675-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Cust. Ct. 385 (Pressner v. United States) 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

Pressner v. United States, 32 Cust. Ct. 385, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1783 (cusc 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of 250 gross of item 4110 celluloid flower pins missing in case 74364, was not in fact imported. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such .portions of the merchandise contained in ease 74364, erroneously reported by the landing inspector as case 74362, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of 250 gross of item 4110 celluloid flower pins missing in case 74364, was not in fact imported. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such .portions of the merchandise contained in ease 74364, erroneously reported by the landing inspector as case 74362, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Cust. Ct. 385, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pressner-v-united-states-cusc-1954.