F. Vitelli & Son v. United States
Citations
- 250 U.S. 355
- 39 S. Ct. 544
- 63 L. Ed. 1028
- 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1754
Syllabus
<p>The Act of June 22, 1874, 18 Stat. 190, § 21, provides that whenever duties have been liquidated and paid and the goods delivered, the . entry and settlement shall, after one year from the time of entry, in the absence of fraud and of protest by the owner, etc., be final and conclusive upon all parties. Held, that the purpose was to limit the right to reliquidate, in the interest of the citizen and the security of commercial transactions; and where the collector reliquidates on the ground of fraud, it cannot be presumed that his action was correct so as to cast the onus of disproving fraud upon the importer. P. 357.</p> <p>The fact that .the importer, instead of awaiting suit by the United States, becomes the actor by paying under protest and appealing to the Board of General Appraisers, does not require him to assume the burden of disproving the fraud. P. 358.</p> <p>The Court of Customs Appeals having erroneously assumed, in sustaining a reliquidation based on fraud, that the collector’s action was presumptively correct, and cast the burden of disproving fraud upon the importers, held that the case must be remanded to be tried anew by the Board of General Appraisers, without inquiry by this court into the adequacy of the evidence of fraud in the present record. -P. 359.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- liquidation in the absence of fraud becomes final
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- B. B. Carter and Mrs. Tommie v. Carter v. Ellis Campbell, Jr., Director of Internal RevenueFifth Circuit· 1959-03-10· cited 140×
- Railroad Commission v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.Supreme Court· 1929-12-02· cited 58×
- Jemison v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueFifth Circuit· 1930-12-02· cited 26×
- W. J. Ohlinger and Viola Ohlinger v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1955-01-28· cited 22×
- Dart Export Corp. v. United StatesCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1956-02-21· cited 15×
- Marchica v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1951-11-14· cited 13×
- SSAB North American Division v. United States Bureau of Customs & Border ProtectionCourt of International Trade· 2008-07-14· cited 9×
- Pacific Brokerage Co. v. United StatesU.S. Customs Court· 1939-07-28· cited 8×
- Waterbury Lock & Specialty Co. v. United StatesU.S. Customs Court· 1946-10-02· cited 7×
- Carey & Skinner, Inc. v. United StatesU.S. Customs Court· 1956-01-25· cited 7×
- Bronson v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueSecond Circuit· 1950-06-23· cited 6×
- Zucca v. United StatesCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1920-04-13· cited 6×
- McClure v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1943-02-01· cited 6×
- Wesley O. Paddock v. United StatesSecond Circuit· 1960-06-29· cited 4×
- Delaware Watch Co. v. United StatesU.S. Customs Court· 1970-04-10· cited 3×
- Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesU.S. Customs Court· 1958-08-14· cited 2×
- A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United StatesU.S. Customs Court· 1967-08-30· cited 2×
- Connor v. United StatesU.S. Customs Court· 1956-08-30· cited 1×
- Trainer v. United StatesE.D. Pennsylvania· 1956-11-07· cited 1×
- United States v. National Semiconductor Corp.Court of International Trade· 2006-06-16
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Other cases named F. Vitelli & Son v. United States
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.