Protests 114681-K of Browne Vintners Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protests 114681-K of Browne Vintners Co.

15 Cust. Ct. 259

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedSeptember 5, 1945

DocketNo. 50456

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 Cust. Ct. 259 (Protests 114681-K of Browne Vintners 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

Protests 114681-K of Browne Vintners Co., 15 Cust. Ct. 259 (cusc 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial plaintiff limited its claims to the case of whisky covered by WHB-33751 and the two cases of whisky covered by WHB-33484 which were not landed in the United States. Counsel for plaintiff admitted that the affidavits of short shipment provided for under article 812, Customs [260]*260Regulations of 1937, were not filed within the time prescribed. The issue before the court in shortage cases is whether or not it is in fact a nonimportation, and compliance with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, as far as the court is concerned, is immaterial. Abstract 50268 and Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. v. United States (14 Cust. Ct. 71, C. D. 914) cited. Inasmuch as the evidence conclusively established that the three cases of liquor in question were not landed it was held that the importer is entitled to a refund in duties taken upon said three cases of liquor. The protests were sustained to this extent.

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

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial plaintiff limited its claims to the case of whisky covered by WHB-33751 and the two cases of whisky covered by WHB-33484 which were not landed in the United States. Counsel for plaintiff admitted that the affidavits of short shipment provided for under article 812, Customs [260]*260Regulations of 1937, were not filed within the time prescribed. The issue before the court in shortage cases is whether or not it is in fact a nonimportation, and compliance with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, as far as the court is concerned, is immaterial. Abstract 50268 and Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. v. United States (14 Cust. Ct. 71, C. D. 914) cited. Inasmuch as the evidence conclusively established that the three cases of liquor in question were not landed it was held that the importer is entitled to a refund in duties taken upon said three cases of liquor. The protests were sustained to this extent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Cust. Ct. 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protests-114681-k-of-browne-vintners-co-cusc-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack