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

42 Cust. Ct. 269
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJanuary 27, 1959
DocketNo. 62709; protest 121359-K (Tampa)
StatusPublished

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

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

Related

United States v. Browne Vintners Co.
34 C.C.P.A. 112 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1946)
United States v. R. C. Williams & Co.
40 C.C.P.A. 130 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1953)
Austin, Nichols & Co. v. United States
22 Cust. Ct. 33 (U.S. Customs Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 Cust. Ct. 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-u-delapenha-co-v-united-states-cusc-1959.