T. D. Downing Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

T. D. Downing Co. v. United States

38 Cust. Ct. 398

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1957

DocketNo. 60449; protest 266153-K (Boston)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 Cust. Ct. 398 (T. D. Downing 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

T. D. Downing Co. v. United States, 38 Cust. Ct. 398 (cusc 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Frank P. Dow Co. (Inc.) v. United States (49 Treas. Dec. 271, T. D. 41364). It was held that where a notice of appraisement is required to be sent by the collector to the importer under section 501, supra, because the appraised value is higher than the entered value or a change in classification results from the appraised value, the failure to give the required notice has the effect of voiding the appraisement and rendering the liquidation invalid. (United States v. James H. Rhodes & Co., 40 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 1, C. A. D. 488) cited. It was further held that this rule applies also to duress entries. W. X. Huber Co. v. United States, 20 Cust. Ct. 121, C. D. 1093, [399]*399cited. Accordingly, it was held that the appraisement herein was void and the liquidation based thereon invalid. Following Abstract 57757, the protest was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Frank P. Dow Co. (Inc.) v. United States (49 Treas. Dec. 271, T. D. 41364). It was held that where a notice of appraisement is required to be sent by the collector to the importer under section 501, supra, because the appraised value is higher than the entered value or a change in classification results from the appraised value, the failure to give the required notice has the effect of voiding the appraisement and rendering the liquidation invalid. (United States v. James H. Rhodes & Co., 40 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 1, C. A. D. 488) cited. It was further held that this rule applies also to duress entries. W. X. Huber Co. v. United States, 20 Cust. Ct. 121, C. D. 1093, [399]*399cited. Accordingly, it was held that the appraisement herein was void and the liquidation based thereon invalid. Following Abstract 57757, the protest was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Cust. Ct. 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-d-downing-co-v-united-states-cusc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack