Legal Opinion

Knauth v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided December 4, 1925No. 2467PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaRbeb, Judge

Section 563 of the Tariff Act of 1922 contains the following provision:

Allowance for loss — Abandonment.—-In no case shall there be any abatement or allowance made in the duties for any injury, deterioration, loss, or damage sustained by any merchandise while-remaining in a bonded warehouse: Provided, That upon the production of satisfactory proof to the Board of General Appraisers of actual injury or destruction, in whole or in part, of any merchandise, by accidental fire or other casualty, while in bonded warehouse, * * * such board is hereby authorized to order an abatement or refund, as…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Uberti v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Superfos v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  2. A. Hofmann, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934
  3. Henry W. Peabody & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
  4. Herbert Kann Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  5. Peabody v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1950

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