James H. Rhodes & Co. v. United States

Opinion by

In accordance withforal stipulation of counsel that the facts contained in the letter of the collector, dated April 5, 1956, stating that “the dutiable value was inadvertently based on the original appraised units of value instead of the invoice units, as ordered” by the court in James H. Rhodes & Co. v. United States (33 Cust. Ct. 518, Reap. Dec. 8330) are true and correct, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.