Protest 94697-K of Oceanic Trading Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 94697-K of Oceanic Trading Co.

15 Cust. Ct. 266

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedSeptember 13, 1945

DocketNo. 50483

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Cust. Ct. 266 (Protest 94697-K of Oceanic Trading 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 94697-K of Oceanic Trading Co., 15 Cust. Ct. 266 (cusc 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The case was submitted upon the official papers. From the collector’s memorandum it appeared that the duress certificate covering entry 813041 was filed subsequent to entry, and cited as the case pending on appeal to reappraisement “Entry No. 6523 — San Francisco — Appeal No. 01482,” whereas the correct entry number was 6532 and the appeal number 7232. Inasmuch as it has been held that duress certificates in order to be sufficient must be filed at the time of entry, the court found no error in the collector's finding in this case. (Ono Trading Co. v. United States, 23 C. C. P. A. 124, T. D. 47991, and Sabine Transportation Co. v. United States, 3. Cust. Ct. 286, C. D. 256, cited.) It was held that there was no proof that the mistake in the certificate filed was a clerical error. (McQuillan v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A. 215, T. D. 44401, cited.) The protest was therefore overruled.

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

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The case was submitted upon the official papers. From the collector’s memorandum it appeared that the duress certificate covering entry 813041 was filed subsequent to entry, and cited as the case pending on appeal to reappraisement “Entry No. 6523 — San Francisco — Appeal No. 01482,” whereas the correct entry number was 6532 and the appeal number 7232. Inasmuch as it has been held that duress certificates in order to be sufficient must be filed at the time of entry, the court found no error in the collector's finding in this case. (Ono Trading Co. v. United States, 23 C. C. P. A. 124, T. D. 47991, and Sabine Transportation Co. v. United States, 3. Cust. Ct. 286, C. D. 256, cited.) It was held that there was no proof that the mistake in the certificate filed was a clerical error. (McQuillan v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A. 215, T. D. 44401, cited.) The protest was therefore overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Cust. Ct. 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-94697-k-of-oceanic-trading-co-cusc-1945.