Protest 90430-K of Wilbur Ellis Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 90430-K of Wilbur Ellis Co.

16 Cust. Ct. 213

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1946

DocketNo. 50842

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Cust. Ct. 213 (Protest 90430-K of Wilbur Ellis 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

Protest 90430-K of Wilbur Ellis Co., 16 Cust. Ct. 213 (cusc 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Ekwall, Judge:

Importations of woven wire netting were assessed with dumping duty under the Antidumping Act of 1921. Plaintiff in this action has filed protest against such assessment on the ground that the appraisement, reappraisement, and liquidation are null and void because the mandatory requirements of section 499, Tariff Act of 1930, were not complied with in that the collector failed to designate, and the appraiser failed to examine the statutory number of packages in the importation.

Appraisement was made prior to the enactment of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938.

From the testimony introduced at the hearing held at the port of San Francisco and an examination of the official papers it is apparent that the designation of the collector was as follows in each case:

U. S. Appraiser will examine at wharf before delivery.

It has been held that the designation “Wharf” upon the summary sheet is an insufficient designation in that it does not comply with said section 499. We find that the above-quoted designation is insufficient and not in compliance with the statute. See New York Match Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, 3 Cust. Ct. 283, C. D. 255; United States v. Stauffer Eshleman & Co., Ltd., et al., Reap. Dec. 5732; and Sabine Transportation Co. v. United States, Reap. Dec. 4409.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the. Secretary of the Treasury had promulgated any special regulation with respect to the designation and examination of this type of merchandise.

The law is well settled that the requirements of the statute are mandatory. Inasmuch as they have not been complied with in this case, we sustain the claim of the plaintiff that the liquidations herein are illegal for the reason that the appraisement and reappraisement were null and void. Therefore the dumping duty was illegally assessed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

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

Ekwall, Judge:

Importations of woven wire netting were assessed with dumping duty under the Antidumping Act of 1921. Plaintiff in this action has filed protest against such assessment on the ground that the appraisement, reappraisement, and liquidation are null and void because the mandatory requirements of section 499, Tariff Act of 1930, were not complied with in that the collector failed to designate, and the appraiser failed to examine the statutory number of packages in the importation.

Appraisement was made prior to the enactment of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938.

From the testimony introduced at the hearing held at the port of San Francisco and an examination of the official papers it is apparent that the designation of the collector was as follows in each case:

U. S. Appraiser will examine at wharf before delivery.

It has been held that the designation “Wharf” upon the summary sheet is an insufficient designation in that it does not comply with said section 499. We find that the above-quoted designation is insufficient and not in compliance with the statute. See New York Match Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, 3 Cust. Ct. 283, C. D. 255; United States v. Stauffer Eshleman & Co., Ltd., et al., Reap. Dec. 5732; and Sabine Transportation Co. v. United States, Reap. Dec. 4409.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the. Secretary of the Treasury had promulgated any special regulation with respect to the designation and examination of this type of merchandise.

The law is well settled that the requirements of the statute are mandatory. Inasmuch as they have not been complied with in this case, we sustain the claim of the plaintiff that the liquidations herein are illegal for the reason that the appraisement and reappraisement were null and void. Therefore the dumping duty was illegally assessed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Cust. Ct. 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-90430-k-of-wilbur-ellis-co-cusc-1946.

Opinion

U. S. Appraiser will examine at wharf before delivery.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack