General
Bortolo Bendin, Inc., and Pepe-Maisano Co. v. United States
22 Cust. Ct. 219·United States Customs Court·1949
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 52789.
Bortolo Bendin, Inc., and Pepe-Maisano Co. v. United States,
protests 137251-K and 137932-K (New York).
[MAJORITY — Johnson, J.]
Opinion by
Johnson, J.
At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar to those involved in United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it involves the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, is subject to an allowance in duties. The protests were sustained to this extent.