Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Wedemann & Godknecht, Inc.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 15, 1975No. 74-25, C.A.D. 1151Published

1ConcurrenceMillek, Judge

I concur in the majority’s decision, but I am persuaded that the decision is needlessly premised on a fiction. Allen Forwarding Co. (Allen) clearly was the' agent for Wedemann & Godknecht (Wede-mann). However, the majority reverses the positions and makes Allen the principal. As did the Customs Court, it also recognizes an after-the-fact “ratification” of Wedemann’s protest action by Allen. •

Under section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC 1514), a protest may be filed by “the importer, consignee, or agent of the person paying such charge or exaction.” Appellant contends that “agent of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Patchogue-Plymouth Mills Corporation v. DurningCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
  2. S. Stern & Company v. The United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  3. Adolco Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
  4. Gray v. LawrenceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1853
  5. Mason v. KaneU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland · 1851

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

Powered by the Exa API