R. U. Delapenha & Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

R. U. Delapenha & Co. v. United States

42 Cust. Ct. 269

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in R. U. Delapenha & Co. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 39 Cust. Ct. 136 →

United States Customs Court·Decided January 27, 1959·No. No. 62709; protest 121359-K (Tampa)·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the collector’s report, received in evidence at the trial, shows that no allowance was made for duty or internal revenue tax for certain shortage, nor was an allowance made for duty to cover breakage, for the reason that the importer failed to file an affidavit of short shipment. Following United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351), United States v. R. C. Williams & Co., Inc. (40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc. v. United States (22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the collector’s report, received in evidence at the trial, shows that no allowance was made for duty or internal revenue tax for certain shortage, nor was an allowance made for duty to cover breakage, for the reason that the importer failed to file an affidavit of short shipment. Following United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351), United States v. R. C. Williams & Co., Inc. (40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc. v. United States (22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

R. U. Delapenha & Co. v. United States, 42 Cust. Ct. 269 (cusc 1959).

Pincite

42 Cust. Ct. 269 (R. U. Delapenha & Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related