S. Jackson & Son, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

S. Jackson & Son, Inc. v. United States

23 Cust. Ct. 195, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1012

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedNovember 1, 1949

DocketNo. 53675; protest 140808-K/12989 (New Orleans)

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Cust. Ct. 195 (S. Jackson & Son, Inc. 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

S. Jackson & Son, Inc. v. United States, 23 Cust. Ct. 195, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1012 (cusc 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

[196]*196Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) it was held that the issue in shortage cases is not whether there was a compliance with the customs regulations but whether or not there was, in fact, a nonimportation of the goods, as claimed, and the burden of proof was upon the importer. At the trial the importer herein made no attempt to meet the burden of establishing that there actually was a short landing of the merchandise and also failed to move into evidence the report of the discharging inspector'respecting any shortages reported to him. It was held that affidavits filed with the collector in attempted compliance with customs regulations prescribing the manner of showing a shortage are not admissible in evidence since the issue is whether or not there was a shortage (Borgfeldt & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 421, T. D. 39433, followed). From the record presented the court was constrained to enter judgment in favor of the Government. The protest was therefore overruled.

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

[196]*196Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) it was held that the issue in shortage cases is not whether there was a compliance with the customs regulations but whether or not there was, in fact, a nonimportation of the goods, as claimed, and the burden of proof was upon the importer. At the trial the importer herein made no attempt to meet the burden of establishing that there actually was a short landing of the merchandise and also failed to move into evidence the report of the discharging inspector'respecting any shortages reported to him. It was held that affidavits filed with the collector in attempted compliance with customs regulations prescribing the manner of showing a shortage are not admissible in evidence since the issue is whether or not there was a shortage (Borgfeldt & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 421, T. D. 39433, followed). From the record presented the court was constrained to enter judgment in favor of the Government. The protest was therefore overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Cust. Ct. 195, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-jackson-son-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack