Legal Opinion

Schayer v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided February 2, 1966No. C.D. 2614PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Richardson, Judge:

The merchandise of this protest consists of cameras, cases, and other photographic equipment, imported at Denver, Colo., from Japan, some of which merchandise was advanced in value upon appraisement. It is plaintiff’s claim herein that liquidation of the involved entry is premature, illegal, and void because notice of appraisement was not given as required by law. Plaintiff contends that notice of appraisement was not delivered and that such notice was not received by plaintiff. Defendant contends that notice of appraisement was given and that plaintiff has failed to prove…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States ex rel. Helmecke v. RiceDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1922
  2. Orlex Dyes & Chemicals Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  3. Clayton Chemical & Packaging Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  4. Astra Trading Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  5. Nippon Dry Goods Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1943

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Davies, Turner & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  2. United States v. International Importers, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
  3. Sanford Steel Pipe Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1972
  4. Davies, Turner & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  5. Plywood & Door Southern Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966

1 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