Erskine (Inc.) v. United States

Erskine (Inc.) v. United States (No. 2562) Remission Petition Premature Before Liquidation. Following Woolworth et al. v. United States, 14 Ct. Oust. Appls. 81, T. I). 41583, a petition for 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 29 1926 Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 48745 [Dismissed without prejudice.] Frank L. Lawrence (Martin T. Baldwin of counsel) for appellant. William W. Hoppin and Charles D. Lawrence, Assistant Attorneys General (.Margaret M. Burnet, special attorney, of counsel), for the United States. [Oral argument October 15, 1925, and March 18, 1926, by Mr. Charles D. Lawrence] Before Graham, Presiding Judge, and Smith, Barber, Bland, and Hatfield, Associate Judges T. D. 41695. [MAJORITY — Smith, Judge,] Smith, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The record in th i case does not disclose that the entry was liquidated and both parties concede that it was not liquidated. Upon the authority of Woolworth et al. v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 81, T. D. 41583, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice io the right of the importer to file another petition for the remission of additional duties or to avail himself of such other legal remedy as may be proper.