United States v. Seventy-Five Bales of Tobacco
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The full title of this cause is United States v. Seventy-Five Bales of Tobacco (amended to Forty-Nine Bales), etc., Selgas, Suarez & Co. claimants.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The full title of this cause is United States v. Seventy-Five Bales of Tobacco (amended to Forty-Nine Bales), etc., Selgas, Suarez & Co. claimants. At the trial below the court, Holt, District Judge, directed a verdict in the following language: “It is, of course, the fact that a reliquidation and a reappraisement can be had in any case where property is claimed to have been erroneously appraised at first, and upon such reliquidation the proper amount of duties can be ascertained. It seems to me…
1Opinion of the Court
COXE, Circuit Judge.
On writ of error to review a decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, which directed a verdict for the defendants in an action brought by the United States for the forfeiture of 49 bales of tobacco imported at Tampa, Fla.
The information charges that the invoice and entry were false and fraudulent in that the tobacco was described therein as “leaf tobacco fillers,” whereas it was in truth and in fact “wrapper tobacco.” The information was laid under section 9 of the customs administration act of June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 135 [U. S. Comp.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- United States v. Ninety-Nine DiamondsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
3Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- United States v. Matthew YipCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Jen Dao Chen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
- United States v. DixonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1934
- Richert Leaf Tobacco Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.