United States v. Benjamin

72 F. 51, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2539
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided February 11, 1896·No. No. 1,726·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

GOXE, District Judge

(orally). We start in this cause with the undisputed fact" that there was a clear clerical mistake in the invoice of the goods, which, though in fact worth so many pfennigs, were invoiced as worth so many marks. This being true, the court is naturally inclined to give the importers relief, if possible. As soon as the mistake was discovered the importers protested against the illegal exaction of duty. The protest, with all the proceedings, was returned by the collector to the board of general appraisers. They find as facts that there was a clear clerical mistake in the valuation of the goods, and that the appraising officer, had he made a careful and intelligent examination would have discovered the mistake on (lie face of the invoice. The board (lien correct the mistake, find the (rue market value of the goods, and sustain the protest. I am inclined to think that the board had jurisdiction and that their finding is correct. 1 cannot believe that it was the intention of congress to require ail importer whose property is thus taken to go through the complicated and inconsequential proceedings which have been suggested here, especially when some of them coneededly would not furnish the relief sought for or lead to any practical result. A mistake so plain demands a simple remedy.

The decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed

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

United States v. Benjamin, 72 F. 51, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2539 (circtsdny 1896).

72 F. 51 (United States v. Benjamin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mills v. United States
8 Ct. Cust. 31 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1917)
Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States
5 Ct. Cust. 51 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1914)
United States v. Swedish Produce Co.
4 Ct. Cust. 223 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1913)
Morimura Bros. v. United States
160 F. 280 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1908)
Gillespie v. United States
124 F. 106 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1900)