FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL v. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 501 (1927)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL v. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 501 (1927)275 U.S. 501
No. 346.
FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL,
petitioners,
v.
The UNITED STATES.
Supreme Court of the United States
November 28, 1927
Mr. Frederick W. Brooks, Jr., of New York City, for petitioners.
PER CURIAM.
Reversed on the authority of the United States v. Fish, 268 U.S.
607, 612, 45 S. Ct. 616; the decision being that section 489 of
the Tariff Act of 1922 (c. 356, 42 Stat. 858, 962 (19 USCA 361)
does not forbid the Customs Court to adopt rules of practice
permitting the filing of such petitions before liquidation, that it
has jurisdiction to consider petitions so filed, and its decision
in this case granting the petition was not ineffective for want of
jurisdiction.[ Finkelstein & Kommel v. United States 275 U.S. 501 (1927) ]
Opinions
No. 346.
FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL, petitioners,
v.
The UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of the United States November 28, 1927 Mr. Frederick W. Brooks, Jr., of New York City, for petitioners. PER CURIAM. Reversed on the authority of the United States v. Fish, 268 U.S. 607, 612, 45 S. Ct. 616; the decision being that section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (c. 356, 42 Stat. 858, 962 (19 USCA 361) does not forbid the Customs Court to adopt rules of practice permitting the filing of such petitions before liquidation, that it has jurisdiction to consider petitions so filed, and its decision in this case granting the petition was not ineffective for want of jurisdiction.[ Finkelstein & Kommel v. United States 275 U.S. 501 (1927) ]
U.S. Supreme Court
FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL v. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 501 (1927) 275 U.S. 501No. 346.
FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL, petitioners,
v.
The UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of the United States November 28, 1927 Mr. Frederick W. Brooks, Jr., of New York City, for petitioners. PER CURIAM. Reversed on the authority of the United States v. Fish, 268 U.S. 607, 612, 45 S. Ct. 616; the decision being that section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (c. 356, 42 Stat. 858, 962 (19 USCA 361) does not forbid the Customs Court to adopt rules of practice permitting the filing of such petitions before liquidation, that it has jurisdiction to consider petitions so filed, and its decision in this case granting the petition was not ineffective for want of jurisdiction.[ Finkelstein & Kommel v. United States 275 U.S. 501 (1927) ]
Search This Case
