General
Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. (Inc.) v. United States
12 Ct. Cust. 316·United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·1924
Before Martin, Presiding Judge, and Smith, Barber, Bland, and Hatfield, Associate Judges
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
Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. (Inc.) v. United States
(No. 2365).
Construction, Section 501, Tariff Act of 1922 — Finding in Writing by Board in Appraisement Appeals.
Following Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. (Inc.) v. United States (Í2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 261; T. D. 40269), the direction of Section 501, tariff act of 1922, to the Board of Three General Appraisers in appraisement appeals to “state its action in a written decision to be forwarded to the collector, setting forth the facts upon which the finding is based and the reasons therefor” is for the purpose of enabling the Court of Customs Appeals to review the decision “upon a question or questions of law only,” and is mandatory. The cause is remanded for such written finding to be made.
United States Court of Customs Appeals,
June 28, 1924
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Reappraisement Circular 34429
[Remanded.]
Barnes, Wilson & Halstead (Frank M. Halstead and Albert MacC. Barnes of counsel) for appellant.
William W. Hoppin Assistant Attorney General (John G. Lerch, special attorney, of counsel), for the United States.
Marion De Vries (De Vries, Doherty, Davis & Lamb of counsel) amicus curiae.
[Oral argument May 23,1924, by Mr. Halstead, Mr. Lercb, and Mr. De Vries]
Before Martin, Presiding Judge, and Smith, Barber, Bland, and Hatfield, Associate Judges
T. D. 40316.
[MAJORITY — Blaxd, Judge,]
Blaxd, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This appeal involves a number of close and important questions with reference to the value, appraisement, and rate of duty on imported dye. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers does not comply with section 501 of the tariff act of 1922, which requires that it state its findings of facts and conclusions of law. We here adopt the decision of the court in Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Company (Inc.) v. United States (12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 261; T. D. 40269), which is controlling in the case.
The case is therefore remanded to the Board of General Appraisers to enable it to make its findings of facts and conclusions of law as in the statute provided.