Legal Opinion

United States v. Tower

United States Customs Court

Decided April 22, 1942No. 5615; Entry Nos. B-1853 and B-2339PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cline, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement, which were filed by the collector, were consolidated for trial. The merchandise involved consists-of magnesite bricks, invoiced as “Burnt Dolomite Bricks, numbers 165-001, 165-002, 165-003 and 170-001.” The merchandise was appraised at the invoice value.

When the case was called for trial, there was no appearance on the part of the defendants. The plaintiff called Mr. Arthur F. Caldwell who is a liquidator at the port of Buffalo, tie testified that he was familiar with the cases involved; that the ultimate consignee was Basic Dolomite, Inc., of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. Spiritos Music SchoolUnited States Customs Court · 1939
  2. Universal Carloading & Distributing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1940
  3. Solari v. Uunited StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1940
  4. United States v. Arkell Safety Bag Co.United States Customs Court · 1939

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Calif-Asia Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
  2. Calif-Asia Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
  3. Klingerit, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API