Legal Opinion
United States v. One Case, No. 1,577
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided June 19, 1916No. 295PublishedCited by 2 opinions
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Proceeding by the United States for the forfeiture of one case of laces, etc., consigned to Cobden & Co. Forfeiture was denied, and the United States bring error.
1Opinion of the Court
WARD, Circuit Judge.
The government filed this libel for the forfeiture of a case of laces seized • by the collector, whicfy was consigned by the owner, Brantvogel, in Germany to Cobden & Co. at New York. Subsection H of section III of the Tariff Act of October 3,
1913, 38 Stat. page 183 (Comp. St. 1913, § 5526), reads as follows:
“II. That if any consignor, seller, owner, importer, consignee, agent, or other person or persons shall enter or introduce, or attempt to enter or introduce, into the commerce of the United States any imported merchandise by moans of any fraudulent or false invoice,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Goldstein v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- United States v. Nineteen Bales & Sixteen Bundles of RugsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1917