Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. v. United States

24 Cust. Ct. 325, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1491
United States Customs Court·Decided January 4, 1950·No. No. 53865; protest 146632-K (New York)·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In lieu of “outward evidence,” a manufacturer’s affidavit from the Scintilla Magneto Division, Bendix Aviation Corp., was presented stating that the magnetos were manufactured in the United States and that no drawback had been collected or claimed. The affidavit was not considered sufficient for the reason that drawback upon such items had at one time been collected, and the importer was unable to produce a proper certificate of outward manifest. At the trial an additional memorandum by the collector was offered in evidence, wherein he acknowledged that the information contained in a letter of the manufacturer of the magnetos, received subsequent to the filing of the protest, was sufficient to indicate that no drawback had been paid, and that his office was satisfied that the merchandise was entitled to free entry. In view of the evidence presented and of the collector’s acknowledgment that there had been a compliance or waiver under sections 10.1-10.3, Customs Regulations of 1943, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

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

Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. v. United States, 24 Cust. Ct. 325, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1491 (cusc 1950).

24 Cust. Ct. 325 (Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bertrand Freres, Inc. v. United States
47 Cust. Ct. 155 (U.S. Customs Court, 1961)
J. J. Distributing Co. v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 27 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Joseph Behr & Sons, Inc. v. United States
34 Cust. Ct. 46 (U.S. Customs Court, 1955)