Case Name: Bullocks, Inc. v. United States
Court: United States Customs Court
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1938-09-28
Citations: 1 Cust. Ct. 629
Docket Number: No. 4400; Entry No. 10800
Parties: Bullocks, Inc. v. United States
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Customs Court Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 629–629

Head Matter:
Bullocks, Inc. v. United States
No. 4400.
Entry No. 10800.
Invoice dated London, England, April 15, 1937.
Certified April 23, 1937.
Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., June 5, 1937.
(Decided September 28, 1938)
Harper & Harper (Abraham Gottfried of counsel) for the plaintiff.
Webster J. Oliver, Assistant Attorney General (John J. McDermott, special attorney), for the defendant.

Opinion:
Evans, Judge:
This is an appeal from the finding of value by the United States appraiser at thie port of Los Angeles. Bather, it should be stated to be an appeal from the action of the collector in sending a notice of advance in value, because it appears from the testimony that there was no advance by the appraiser. On December 14, 1937, the collector sent a notice that the appraised value exceeded the entered value by 2 per centum and 5 per centum.
When the case was called for hearing the only testimony adduced was that of the appraiser who passed upon the merchandise. In response to the inquiry, "Will you please look at the papers in this case and state whether you appraised that merchandise?" he answered, "Yes." "Q. Was that merchandise appraised as entered? — A. It was."
On this record the cause was submitted. There is no explanation as to why the notice of advance was issued. I assume that there was no escape from the necessity of taking some action upon receipt of the notice of advance yet, the merchandise having been appraised as entered, there exists no controversy as to the dutiable value.
I sustain the action of the appraiser.