Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher (Inc.) v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge
As far as this case is concerned the pertinent portion of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1922 reads as follows:
*499* * * Such additional duties shall not be construed to be penal and shall not be remitted- * * * except * * * in any case upon the finding of the Board of General Appraisers, upon a petition filed and supported by satisfactory evidence under such rules as the board may prescribe, that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Linen Thread Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
- Fish v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States v. North American Mercantile Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Stone & Downer Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
- Cintes v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
- Benioff v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
- Corrigan v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1947
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.