Siegfried Lowenthal Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Siegfried Lowenthal Co. v. United States

19 Cust. Ct. 147, 1947 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1089

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedOctober 9, 1947

DocketNo. 51950; protests 109710-K, etc. (Cleveland)

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Cust. Ct. 147 (Siegfried Lowenthal 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

Siegfried Lowenthal Co. v. United States, 19 Cust. Ct. 147, 1947 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1089 (cusc 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial counsel for the Government moved to dismiss the protests upon the ground that the affidavits required by the statute were not filed within the time prescribed by law. The filing of an affidavit within 15 days after the delivery of 'the merchandise is a condition imposed by the statute to be complied with by the importer before the collector is authorized to make an allowance in duties. It was held that a failure on the part of the importer to meet the condition does not affect the validity of the protests. (Abstract 38332 cited.) The motion to dismiss was therefore denied. Inasmuch, however, as the statute specifically prohibits any allowance, constructive or otherwise, for loss of liquors caused by breakage, leakage, or damage, except when an. affidavit is filed within the time prescribed, the court was unable to grant any relief. The protest was therefore overruled.

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial counsel for the Government moved to dismiss the protests upon the ground that the affidavits required by the statute were not filed within the time prescribed by law. The filing of an affidavit within 15 days after the delivery of 'the merchandise is a condition imposed by the statute to be complied with by the importer before the collector is authorized to make an allowance in duties. It was held that a failure on the part of the importer to meet the condition does not affect the validity of the protests. (Abstract 38332 cited.) The motion to dismiss was therefore denied. Inasmuch, however, as the statute specifically prohibits any allowance, constructive or otherwise, for loss of liquors caused by breakage, leakage, or damage, except when an. affidavit is filed within the time prescribed, the court was unable to grant any relief. The protest was therefore overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Cust. Ct. 147, 1947 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegfried-lowenthal-co-v-united-states-cusc-1947.