Legal Opinion

Woolworth Co. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 1, 1926No. 2648PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge

Section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1922, after providing for the assess-jnent of additional duties on importations undervalued on entry, provides that—

•■Such additional duties shall not be construed to be penal and shall not be remitted nor payment thereof in any way avoided, except in the case of a manifest clerical error, upon the order of the Secretary of the Treasury, or 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…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Norton v. Shelby CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. HackettSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  3. United States v. FishSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  4. Klein v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  5. Fish v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. FinkelsteinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  2. Erskine v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. Linck v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  4. Richard v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  5. United States v. BrightCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API