William Rand, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

William Rand, Inc. v. United States

28 Cust. Ct. 486, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 526

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 15, 1952

DocketNo. 56686; protest 173471-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Cust. Ct. 486 (William Rand, Inc. 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

William Rand, Inc. v. United States, 28 Cust. Ct. 486, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 526 (cusc 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in United States v Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of 70 dozen seed bead necklaces out of 170 dozen, invoiced as contained in case No. 7, and I0u/i2 dozen seed bead necklaces out of 102 dozen, invoiced as contained in case No. 16, reported by the inspector as landed in bad order, was not in fact imported nor received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise agreed by counsel as missing from the cases reported by the inspector as landed in bad order.

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in United States v Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of 70 dozen seed bead necklaces out of 170 dozen, invoiced as contained in case No. 7, and I0u/i2 dozen seed bead necklaces out of 102 dozen, invoiced as contained in case No. 16, reported by the inspector as landed in bad order, was not in fact imported nor received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise agreed by counsel as missing from the cases reported by the inspector as landed in bad order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Cust. Ct. 486, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-rand-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1952.