Ex parte Park & Tilford
| Decision Date | 05 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 24,24 |
| Citation | 38 S.Ct. 15,62 L.Ed. 164,245 U.S. 82 |
| Parties | Ex parte PARK & TILFORD |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Vincent P. Donihee, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Warren, for respondent.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the Judges of the United States Court of Customs Appeals to take jurisdiction of a certain cause, and to consider and decide the same upon its merits. The rule to show cause having issued, the judges made return, and set forth the proceedings in the Court of Customs Appeals, and averred that the court had decided the case of the petitioner, and if the writ of mandamus issued, it would only require the court to do that which it had already done.
From the return and the record attached to the petition it appears: Park & Tilford, petitioner, imported certain merchandise at the port of New York under the Tariff Act of 1913. The collector of customs assessed and liquidated the duties at the entered value. The importer claimed assessment at the value decided upon on final reappraisement, which was less than the amount of the entered value. This claim was made under paragraph I of section 3 of the act of 1913, which provides:
'The duty shall not, however, be assessed in any case upon an amount less than the entered value, unless by direction of the Secretary of the Treasury in cases in which the importer certifies at the time of entry that the entered value is higher than the foreign market value and that the goods are so entered in order to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement, and the importer's contention shall subsequently be sustained by a final decision on reappraisement, and it shall appear that the action of the importer on entry was taken in good faith, after due diligence and inquiry on his part, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall accompany his directions with a statement of his conclusions and his reasons therefor.' Comp. St. 1916, § 5527.
The importers entered the goods upon an invoice which stated the gross price and allowed 15 per cent. deduction therefrom; at entry the importers advanced the value by reducing the deduction to 6 per cent. At the time of entry the importer, in each case, made an addition to the invoice value to make market value, stating the additions were made to meet advances in similar cases then pending upon appeal for reappraisement.
On appeal for reappraisement the goods were appraised at a value which differed from the invoice value, being 2 1/2 per...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Com'n
... ... Attention is called to this Court's language in Park Distributing Co. v. Commission, 5 Terry 6, 22-23, 54 A.2d 551, 559 (1947): ... 'The Commission ... See Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 347, 25 L.Ed. 676. As we interpret [56 Del. 316] the New Orleans city ... ...
-
Lemon v. Druffel
...Inc., v. Rodney, 3 Cir., 186 F.2d 111, 116, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 953, 71 S.Ct. 572, 95 L.Ed. 687; Ex parte Park & Tilford, 245 U.S. 82, 85, 38 S.Ct. 15, 62 L.Ed. 164. The present question goes a step further, in that it involves a situation where the District Judge has acted and made ......
-
Jewell v. Davies
...do. The extraordinary writ of mandamus will not issue to require a court to make a particular decision. Ex parte Park & Tilford, 245 U.S. 82, 83, 85, 38 S.Ct. 15, 62 L.Ed. 164. It will not lie to compel a court to reverse or retract a decision such as is sought here. I. C. C. v. U. S. ex re......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., In re
...make, particularly where the ruling is one which addresses itself to the discretion of the District Judge. Ex Parte Park & Tilford, 245 U.S. 82, 85, 38 S.Ct. 15, 62 L.Ed. 164 [1917]; Jewell v. Davies, 6 Cir. [1951], 192 F.2d 670, The Court is of the opinion that the Writ of Mandamus is not ......
-
Substantive Due Process Rediscovered: the Rise and Fall of Liberty of Contract - David N. Mayer
...to acquire or dispose of property that was involved in the case was also a right to enter into a contract for its sale. 391. Buchanan, 245 U.S. at 82. As summarized by Justice Day in the Court's opinion, the ordinance prohibited persons of color from moving into or occupying "any house upon......