Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Nozaki Bros. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided November 26, 1958No. C. D. 2048Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION

Johnson, Judge:

When this case was first before the court, I concurred in the decision restoring the cases to the docket for the presentation of additional evidence.

*253Upon further consideration of the issues before us I am of the opinion that it was the duty of the collector to liquidate in accordance with the mandate of this court in the reappraisement proceedings (Pacific Trading Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, 29 Cust. Ct. 501, Reap. Dec. 8179) and that his failure to do so rendered his liquidations void. United States v. Stegemann, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 198, T. D. 40179;…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. Tampa Box Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  2. United States v. Kurtz, Stuböeck & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
  3. Gruen Watch Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
  4. United States v. MurphyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  5. Stubbs v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API