Legal Opinion

Corrigan v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided September 6, 1951No. 8046; Entry Nos. 3009; 3770PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cole, Judge:

In this review of the decision reported in 25 Cust. Ct. 424, Reap. Dec. 7879, concerning dutiable value of dehydrated garlic powder, it is conceded that there is neither a foreign value nor an export value for the merchandise. This agreement between the parties does not disclose what statutory basis the appraiser applied in his finding of value, so we are faced with the necessity of determining whether appellant has established either United States value or cost of production. If the record is insufficient to support either of those values, then there must he an affirmance of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gump Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  2. Corrigan v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950
  3. W. R. Zanes & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1949

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Corrigan v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  2. Corrigan v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1954
  3. Corrigan v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
  4. Geo. S. Bush & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API