Protest 82367-K of McKesson

13 Cust. Ct. 290
United States Customs Court·Decided September 29, 1944·No. No. 49737·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial all the papers in the case were admitted in evidence without objection. It is the contention of the Government that since the loss was-the result of a casualty sustained by the merchandise being transported under bond, any abatement of duties is within the exclusive juris[291]*291diction of the Secretary of Treasury. From the papers, and in view of the circumstances; the court was of the opinion that the case comes directly within the purview of section 563, Tariff Act of 1930, as contended by the Government. The protest was therefore dismissed.

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

Protest 82367-K of McKesson, 13 Cust. Ct. 290 (cusc 1944).

13 Cust. Ct. 290 (Protest 82367-K of McKesson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

H. Z. Bernstein Co. v. United States
41 Cust. Ct. 282 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Armour v. United States
29 Cust. Ct. 296 (U.S. Customs Court, 1952)