Legal Opinion

Proctor Co. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 6, 1925No. 2401PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlaND, Judge

The appellant, a firm of customhouse brokers, entered at the port of Boston, in behalf of Haddon, Talbot & Smeeton, of Boston, three lots of Botany yarns. The three importations were identical and were all shipped by the firm of James Tankard (Ltd.) of Bradford, England. Upon receipt of the consular invoices and before arrival of the shipments, an employee of the appellant took the invoices to the office of the local United States appraiser and submitted them to an examiner for the purpose of ascertaining the foreign market value on the date of exportation of the yarns. It is claimed that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brown & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
  2. Vandegrift v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
  3. Downing & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  4. United States v. Thomas Leeming & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1907
  5. Fougera & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cummings v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  2. Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha (Ltd.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  3. Morris Rosenbloom & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API