General
Linck v. United States; Kommel Co. v. United States; Transatlantic Clock & Watch Co. (Inc.) v. United States; Grebstein v. United States; Angel & Co. (Inc.) v. United States
14 Ct. Cust. 133·United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·1926
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
Linck v. United States Kommel Co. v. United States Transatlantic Clock & Watch Co. (Inc.) v. United States Grebstein v. United States Angel & Co. (Inc.) v. United States
(No. 2565). (No. 2566). (No. 2576). (No. 2577).
Remission Petition Premature Before Liquidation.
Following Woolworth et al. v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 81, T. D. 41583, a petition for the remission of additional duty imposed for undervaluation under section 489, Tariff Act of 1922, is premature and ineffective if filed before liquidation, and should be dismissed without prejudice
United States Court of Customs Appeals,
May 10, 1926
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 48749; G. A. 8939, T. D. 40689; G. A. 8963, T. D. 40780; Abstract 48998; and Abstract 49541, respectively
[Remanded with instructions.]
Brooks & Brooks (Frederick W. Brooks, jr., of counsel) for appellants.
Charles D. Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General (Reuben Wilson, Thomas J. Canty, John F. Kavanagh, and Hugo P. Oeisler, special attorneys, of counsel, respectively), for the United States.
T. D.41671.
[MAJORITY — PeR CuRIAm:]
PeR CuRIAm:
Now on this day these appeals came on severally to be heard. Thereupon, on the suggestion of the Assistant Attorney General, and upon an examination of the records and the entries in the same, it appears to the court that the entries in each and all of said matters were not liquidated at the times the several petitions for remission were filed in said causes and when said appeals were perfected. Therefore the court finds, following Woolworth et al. v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 81, T. D. 41583, that the said petitions for remission were filed prematurely and that the court below did not have jurisdiction to entertain the same at the time the several judgments thereon were rendered. The several appeals herein are therefore dismissed and the said causes are respectively remanded to the court below, with instructions to enter a judgment'in each of said causes, dismissing the petition therein, without prejudice.