Tri State Distributing Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Tri State Distributing Co. v. United States

33 Cust. Ct. 416, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 894

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedNovember 9, 1954

DocketNo. 58495; petition 6968-R (Milwaukee)

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Cust. Ct. 416 (Tri State Distributing 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

Tri State Distributing Co. v. United States, 33 Cust. Ct. 416, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 894 (cusc 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

[417]*417Opinion by

Ford, J.

At tbe trial, the vice president of the petitioner testified that, in making entry of the merchandise involved, he used the invoice price of the factory in Switzerland and that he supplied the customs officials with the invoices and all other information which he had at that time with reference to the value of the-watches. Following Syndicate Trading Co. v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 409, T. D. 41339) and Crebstein v. United States (15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 285, T. D. 42470), it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.

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

[417]*417Opinion by

Ford, J.

At tbe trial, the vice president of the petitioner testified that, in making entry of the merchandise involved, he used the invoice price of the factory in Switzerland and that he supplied the customs officials with the invoices and all other information which he had at that time with reference to the value of the-watches. Following Syndicate Trading Co. v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 409, T. D. 41339) and Crebstein v. United States (15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 285, T. D. 42470), it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Cust. Ct. 416, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-state-distributing-co-v-united-states-cusc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack