United States v. De Rivera

73 F. 679
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedJuly 1, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 73 F. 679 (United States v. De Rivera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. De Rivera, 73 F. 679 (circtsdny 1896).

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit

Judge (orally charging jury, after stating the ease as above). I have examined this matter with great care since Friday, in the hopes that, in some way or other, I could find some means for relieving the defendant, in whole or in part, from this claim; but, gentlemen of the jury, it,is impossible to do so. The laws of'the United Btates in regard to the liquidation and collection of duties upon imports are evidently constructed upon the [680]*680theory that the citizen who imports goods has no rights at all, or, at least, that the federal government need not be under the slightest concern about them. Under the statutes and the authorities, it is clear that there was no liquidation until the collector himself acted. The mere act of the appraiser in raising the value was a step towards liquidation, but liquidation was not complete until the collector had performed his act. Under the statute, moreover, the collector may “liquidate” whenever he pleases. It may be a week after the goods arrive, or it may be eight years, as it was in this case; and, under the law, he is under no obligation to notify the merchant of his liquidation. The merchant, apparently, has got to keep watch from the time he gets the goods until the collector acts and liquidates, and he takes the risk of not being advised of that action when it occurs. Under the laws as they stand, there is absolutely nothing to do in this case but to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with an exception to the defendant. '

The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs, in accordance with the direction of the court, for $904.80, with interest from March 14, 1890.

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

Related

Dal-Tile Corp. v. United States
17 Ct. Int'l Trade 764 (Court of International Trade, 1993)
Peugeot Motors of America, Inc. v. United States
595 F. Supp. 1154 (Court of International Trade, 1984)
Seneca Grape Juice Corp. v. United States
71 Cust. Ct. 131 (U.S. Customs Court, 1973)
Dart Export Corp. v. United States
43 C.C.P.A. 64 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1956)
Dart Export Corp. v. United States
33 Cust. Ct. 386 (U.S. Customs Court, 1954)
Vitelli v. United States
7 Ct. Cust. 243 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1916)
Pacific Creosoting Co. v. United States
196 F. 35 (Ninth Circuit, 1912)
Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. United States
144 F. 563 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, 1906)
Neresheimer v. United States
131 F. 977 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1903)
Abner Doble Co. v. United States
119 F. 152 (Ninth Circuit, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 F. 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-de-rivera-circtsdny-1896.