Ascher Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 327, 1912 WL 19371, 1912 CCPA LEXIS 130
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMay 31, 1912
DocketNo. 824
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 Ct. Cust. 327 (Ascher Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ascher Co. v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. 327, 1912 WL 19371, 1912 CCPA LEXIS 130 (ccpa 1912).

Opinion

Smith, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Certain goods imported at the port of Chicago were classified by the collector of customs as jewelry set with imitation precious stones and assessed for duty at 85 per cent ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 448 of the tariff act of 1909, which, in so far as it is material to this case, reads as follows:

448. Chains, pinB, collar, cuff, and dress buttons, charms,, combs, millinery and military ornaments, together with all other articles of every description, finished or partly finished, if set with imitation precious stones composed of glass or paste (except imitation jet), or composed wholly or in chief value of silver, German silver, white metal, brass, or gun metal, whether or not enameled, washed, covered, plated, or alloyed with gold, silver or nickel, and designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to the person, valued at twenty cents per dozen pieces, one cent each and in addition thereto three-fifths of one cent per dozen for each one cent the value exceeds twenty cents per dozen; * * * rope, curb, cable, and other fancy patterns of chain, without bar, swivel, snap or ring, composed of rolled gold plate or of silver, German silver, white metal, or brass, not exceeding one-half of one inch in diameter, breadth or thickness, valued at thirty cents per yard, six cents per foot, and in addition thereto three-fifths of one'cent per yard for each one cent the value exceeds thirty cents per yard; finished or unfinished bags, purses and other articles, or parts thereof, made in chief Value of metal mesh composed of silver, German silver, or white metal, valued at [328]*328two dollars per dozen pieces, ten cents per piece and in addition thereto three-fifths of one cent per dozen pieces for each,one cent the value exceeds two dollars per dozen; all of the foregoing, whether known as jewelry or otherwise and whether or not denominatively or otherwise provided for in any other paragraph of this act, twenty-five per centum ad valorem in addition to the specific rate or rates of duty herein provided; all articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry, or parts thereof, finished or unfinished, including chain, mesh, and mesh hags and purses composed of gold or platinum, whether set or not set with diamonds, pearls, cameos, coral, or other precious or semiprecious stones, or imitations thereof, sixty per centum ad valorem.

Under the provisions of subsection 18 of section 28 of said act the collector assessed 85 per cent ad valorem on the value of the goods, in which value was included the value of the cartons, cases, and boxes and the costs and charges incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States. Subsection 18 of section 28, in the part material to this issue, reads as follows:

Sec. 18. That whenever imported merchandise is subject to an ad valorem rate of duty, or to a duty based upon or regulated in any manner by the value thereof, the duty shall be assessed upon the actual market value or wholesale price thereof, at the time of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from whence exported; that such actual market value shall be held to be the price at which such merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in said markets, in the usual wholesale quantities, and the price which the manufacturer or owner would have received, and was willing to receive, for such merchandise when sold in the ordinary course of trade in the usual wholesale quantities, including the value of all cartons, cases, crates, boxes, sacks, casks, barrels, hogsheads, bottles, jars, demijohns, carboys, and other containers or coverings, whether holding liquids or solids, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, * * *. That the words “value,” or “actual market value,” or “wholesale price,” whenever used in this act, or in any law relating to the appraisement of imported merchandise, shall be construed to be the actual market valué or wholesale price of such, or similar merchandise comparable in value therewith, as defined in this act.

The importers protested that the combined specific and ad valorem rates provided for in paragraph 448 should not have been imposed upon the cartons, boxes, wrappers, coverings, or packages containing the merchandise, or upon the costs, charges, and expenses referred to in subsection 18' of section 28. In that behalf it was claimed that the coverings and containers of the merchandise, and the costs, charges, and expenses just referred to were dutiable only at 25 per cent ad valorem.

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed.

As we see it, there is but one question in this case, and that is, Shall the ad valorem rate prescribed by paragraph 448 be laid upon one value of the merchandise and the specific rates upon another and different value? In effect, the importers contend, first, that the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem attaches to the per se value of the merchandise, plus the costs, charges, and expenses of packing ready [329]*329for shipment, and the value of the cartons, boxes, or other containers or coverings of the merchandise; and, second, that'the specific rates should be imposed on the per se value of the merchandise exclusive of the value of containers or coverings and of costs, charges, and expenses of pacldng. We can not agree with this contention. The duty on goods of the character here involved is required by the provisions of subsection 18 of section 28 to be assessed on the actual market value or wholesale price thereof at the time of exportation to the United States in the principal markets of the country from whence exported. Hoeninghaus v. United States (172 U. S., 622); Saxonville Mills v. Russell (116 U. S., 13, 18, 20, 21).

Congress took special pains to define actual market value, and in terms declared in the subsection referred to that — •

Such actual market value shall be held to be the price at which such merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in said markets, in the usual wholesale quantities, and the price which the manufacturer or owner would have received, and was willing to receive, for such merchandise when sold in the ordinary course of trade in the usual wholesale quantities, including the value of all cartons, cases, crates, boxes, sacks, casks, barrels, hogsheads, bottles, jars, demijohns, carboys, and other containers or coverings, whether holding liquids or solids, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

From this it would seem that the duties provided for'the goods by paragraph 448 should be imposed upon the actual market value thereof as actual market value is defined in subsection 18 of section 28. Of course if the word “valued” in that part of paragraph 448 calling for specific rates of duty on the merchandise does not mean actual market value, then the requirements of subsection 18 would not apply. The door on. that argument, however, seems to be closed by the fact that in subsection 18 it is expressly declared—

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. United States
1 Cust. Ct. 249 (U.S. Customs Court, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Ct. Cust. 327, 1912 WL 19371, 1912 CCPA LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ascher-co-v-united-states-ccpa-1912.