Case ID: f_143/html/0920-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAZEL, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FULD & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York,
    January 26, 1906.)
    No. 4,038.
    Customs Duties—Protest—Sueeiciency—Failure to Point Out Proper Bate oe Duty.
    A protest against the assessment of duty which does not point out distinctly and specifically the proper rate of duty is not sufficient, under Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, § 14, 26 Stat 137 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933].
    On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    The decision below affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. The question involved is whether the importers’ protest sufficiently complied with the provisions of Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, § 14, 26 Stat. 137 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933], which requires that an importer, if dissatisfied with the assessment of duty, shall set forth in his protest “distinctly and specifically, and in respect to each entry or payment, the reasons for his objections.”
    Comstock & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn, of counsel), for importers.
    Charles Duane Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   HAZEL, District Judge.

The protest does not point out specifically and distinctly the proper rate of duty in respect to the different entries, and I am of opinion that the question of sufficiency of protest is controlled by U. S. v. Fleitmann (C. C. A.) 137 Fed. 476, and U. S. v. Bayersdofer, 126 Fed. 732, 62 C. C. A. 16. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is sustained.