Protests 994359-G of Arnold Baker Co.

U.S. Customs Court

Protests 994359-G of Arnold Baker Co.

12 Cust. Ct. 286

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMarch 31, 1944

DocketNo. 49306

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Cust. Ct. 286 (Protests 994359-G of Arnold Baker 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 994359-G of Arnold Baker Co., 12 Cust. Ct. 286 (cusc 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It is claimed in the pleadings that the liquidations were illegal and void in that the collector did not designate for examination nor did the appraiser examine the number of packages required by the statute, section 2901 of the Revised Statutes then in effect, carried into the tariff acts of 1922 and 1930 as section 499. The testimony in the case at bar fully supported the allegations in the pleadings, and the record in Davis v. United States (T. D. 49012) was incorporated. On the record thus made it was held that the appraisements were null and void and the liquidations based thereon were invalid. Duty should have been assessed upon the entered values. The plaintiffs’ claim was therefore sustained. United States v. Tower (24 C. C. P. A. 456, T. D. 48912) cited.

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

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It is claimed in the pleadings that the liquidations were illegal and void in that the collector did not designate for examination nor did the appraiser examine the number of packages required by the statute, section 2901 of the Revised Statutes then in effect, carried into the tariff acts of 1922 and 1930 as section 499. The testimony in the case at bar fully supported the allegations in the pleadings, and the record in Davis v. United States (T. D. 49012) was incorporated. On the record thus made it was held that the appraisements were null and void and the liquidations based thereon were invalid. Duty should have been assessed upon the entered values. The plaintiffs’ claim was therefore sustained. United States v. Tower (24 C. C. P. A. 456, T. D. 48912) cited.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Cust. Ct. 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protests-994359-g-of-arnold-baker-co-cusc-1944.