Protest 97965-K of Italian Furniture Frames Corp.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 97965-K of Italian Furniture Frames Corp.

15 Cust. Ct. 244

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedAugust 1, 1945

DocketNo. 50387

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Cust. Ct. 244 (Protest 97965-K of Italian Furniture Frames Corp.) 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 97965-K of Italian Furniture Frames Corp., 15 Cust. Ct. 244 (cusc 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial Government counsel, citing the case of Schelling v. United States (14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 159, T. D. 41691), claimed that the-importer’s claim should be disallowed due to noncompliance with the customs regulations. Since that decision it has been held that in shortage cases the issue before the court is whether or, not there is in fact a nonimportation and compliance-with the regulations is not a condition precedent to recovery. Under the rulings laid'down in Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. v. United States (14 Cust. Ct. 71, C. D. 914), and Abstract 50268, and in view of the fact that plaintiff’s proof in the instant case was sufficient to sustain the claim that the merchandise found in excess was enumerated on the invoice in an unexamined cáse,.duty being paid upon the same, the protest was sustained.

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

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial Government counsel, citing the case of Schelling v. United States (14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 159, T. D. 41691), claimed that the-importer’s claim should be disallowed due to noncompliance with the customs regulations. Since that decision it has been held that in shortage cases the issue before the court is whether or, not there is in fact a nonimportation and compliance-with the regulations is not a condition precedent to recovery. Under the rulings laid'down in Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. v. United States (14 Cust. Ct. 71, C. D. 914), and Abstract 50268, and in view of the fact that plaintiff’s proof in the instant case was sufficient to sustain the claim that the merchandise found in excess was enumerated on the invoice in an unexamined cáse,.duty being paid upon the same, the protest was sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Cust. Ct. 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-97965-k-of-italian-furniture-frames-corp-cusc-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack