Protest 98773-K of Italian Furniture Frame Corp.

U.S. Customs Court

Protest 98773-K of Italian Furniture Frame Corp.

15 Cust. Ct. 247

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedAugust 8, 1945

DocketNo. 50402

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Cust. Ct. 247 (Protest 98773-K of Italian Furniture Frame 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 98773-K of Italian Furniture Frame Corp., 15 Cust. Ct. 247 (cusc 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial plaintiff testified that the merchandise on which the collector assessed duty arrived on another entry, but admitted no claim for shortage was filed. Government contended that due to noncompliance with article 813, Customs Regulations of 1937, the importer is not entitled to recover. Under the rulings laid down in Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. v. United States (14 Cust. Ct. 71, C. D. 914), and Abstract 50268, it was found that the importer’s failure to comply with the regulations do'es not preclude him from recovery where, as in the instant case, sufficient evidence has been produced to sustain the claim that the merchandise found in excess was enumerated on the invoice in an unexamined case and that duty was paid upon the same. The protest was therefore sustained.

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

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial plaintiff testified that the merchandise on which the collector assessed duty arrived on another entry, but admitted no claim for shortage was filed. Government contended that due to noncompliance with article 813, Customs Regulations of 1937, the importer is not entitled to recover. Under the rulings laid down in Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. v. United States (14 Cust. Ct. 71, C. D. 914), and Abstract 50268, it was found that the importer’s failure to comply with the regulations do'es not preclude him from recovery where, as in the instant case, sufficient evidence has been produced to sustain the claim that the merchandise found in excess was enumerated on the invoice in an unexamined case and that duty was paid upon the same. The protest was therefore sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Cust. Ct. 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-98773-k-of-italian-furniture-frame-corp-cusc-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack