United States v. McQuade

16 Ct. Cust. 334, 1928 WL 28024, 1928 CCPA LEXIS 91
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedNovember 19, 1928
DocketNo. 3092
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 16 Ct. Cust. 334 (United States v. McQuade) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. McQuade, 16 Ct. Cust. 334, 1928 WL 28024, 1928 CCPA LEXIS 91 (ccpa 1928).

Opinion

GRAHAM, Presiding Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

On the 21st' day of July, 1917, Peter McQuade, the appellee, imported at the port of New York six puncheons of whisky which he then entered for warehousing. One puncheon was withdrawn on August 30, 1917. On October 4, 1917, the revenue act of 1917 went into effect. On December 10, 1917, the entry was reliquidated on the remaining five puncheons at thé rate of $2.60 per gallon, under paragraph 237 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, plus $2.10 per gallon, under section 300 of the said revenue act of 1917. On October 19, 1917, one additional puncheon was withdrawn, and two more on January 27; 1919. The revenue act of 1918 went into effect on February 25, 1919. The two remaining puncheons were withdrawn on March 7,1919. On withdrawal of the last two puncheons, the importer was required to pay duties at'the rate of $2.60 per gallon, under paragraph 237 aforesaid, plus $6.40 per gallon, under section 600 (a) of said revenue act of 1918. No protests were filed by the importer within the statutory time after these withdrawals. On January 10, 1923, the collector attempted to reliquidate on the five puncheons last withdrawn. This attempted reliquidation appears to have been at the same rates as theretofore fixed at the times of the preceding withdrawals, the only apparent change in the liquidation being an allowance to the importer, for outage, of $42.82. Within the statutory period after the said pretended reliquidation of January 10, 1923, the importer duly protested, the protest being, so far as relevant, as follows:

1. That the entry was previously liquidated, and all of the merchandise covered thereby was withdrawn from warehouse and delivered from customs custody and the liquidated duties fully paid thereon more than one year prior to the said reliquidation, and that the original liquidation of said duties confirmed by your decision permitting withdrawal on payment of the liquidated duties became final and conclusive one year from the date of such withdrawal, and that under the provisions of section 21 of the act of June 22, 1874, you had no authority to reliquidate said entry for an increase in duties.
2. That the said liquors were not subject to any further or other duty than the duty paid on withdrawal thereof.
[336]*336

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

Related

American Distilling Co. v. United States
32 Cust. Ct. 168 (U.S. Customs Court, 1954)
Westco Liquor, Products Co. v. United States
24 Cust. Ct. 120 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
Waitt & Bond, Inc. v. United States
20 Cust. Ct. 224 (U.S. Customs Court, 1948)
Lloyd's Subagent v. United States
19 C.C.P.A. 408 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1932)
United States v. Vandegrift
17 C.C.P.A. 127 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Ct. Cust. 334, 1928 WL 28024, 1928 CCPA LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mcquade-ccpa-1928.