Vantine v. United States

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Vantine v. United States

91 F. 519, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2904

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJanuary 18, 1899

DocketNo. 2,690

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 F. 519 (Vantine v. United States) 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

Vantine v. United States, 91 F. 519, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2904 (circtsdny 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

These internal transportation charges for getting the goods from the place of manufacture to the place of shipment may not be dutiable elements of market value; but they appear to have been included in the entry as a part of that value because that was thought to be the best way, in view of former proceedings, without indicating in any way that now they were objected to. They appear to so have become an undisputed part of the entered value, which the collector could not reduce. That distinguishes this case from Robertson v. Frank, 132 U. S. 17, 10 Sup. Ct. 5, where the transportation charges were inserted in the entry as being required by the appraiser, and the jury found ttiat this was done by compulsion in making that entry, and not because that was thought, in the language of the charge, to be the best way. Decision affirmed.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

These internal transportation charges for getting the goods from the place of manufacture to the place of shipment may not be dutiable elements of market value; but they appear to have been included in the entry as a part of that value because that was thought to be the best way, in view of former proceedings, without indicating in any way that now they were objected to. They appear to so have become an undisputed part of the entered value, which the collector could not reduce. That distinguishes this case from Robertson v. Frank, 132 U. S. 17, 10 Sup. Ct. 5, where the transportation charges were inserted in the entry as being required by the appraiser, and the jury found ttiat this was done by compulsion in making that entry, and not because that was thought, in the language of the charge, to be the best way. Decision affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 F. 519, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vantine-v-united-states-circtsdny-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack