Case ID: cust-ct_45/html/0293-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 64611.
    Gimbel Bros., Inc. v. United States,
    protest 59/30226 (New York).
   Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351), and that ease 1842/3, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon case 1842/3, which was reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.