Barnett Int. Fwders, Inc. v. United States

42 Cust. Ct. 450
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJanuary 23, 1959
DocketReap. Dec. 9301; Entry No. 104581
StatusPublished

This text of 42 Cust. Ct. 450 (Barnett Int. Fwders, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barnett Int. Fwders, Inc. v. United States, 42 Cust. Ct. 450 (cusc 1959).

Opinion

Mollison, Judge:

The above-entitled appeal for reappraisement was submitted for decision by counsel for the parties upon a stipulation reading as follows:

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto that cost of production as defined in Section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 is the proper basis of appraisement for the merchandise covered by cases No. 5055, 5056, 5057 and 5058 in invoice No. 7175 embraced in the entry covered by the appeal to reappraisement noted above; that such cost of production are the prices set forth in the column marked “B” in green ink and initialed JFM (Examiner’s initials) by Examiner John F. Mitchell (Examiner’s name) on the page attached to the invoice papers and identified by the notation “Factures No. 7.173 & 7.175 Collonne II,” less 1 per centum packed.
That at the time when said merchandise was exported to the United States s,ueh or similar merchandise was not being freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation; nor was it being freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation for exportation to the United States; nor was it being freely offered for sale in the principal markets of the United States to United States purchasers.

On the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis of value for the merchandise covered by the cases enumerated in the stipulation, and that such value is as set forth in the column and page identified in the stipulation, an excerpt from which is attached to this decision and marked schedule “A,” less 1 per centum, packed.

[451]*451Judgment will issue accordingly.

Schedule “A”

Factures No. 7.173 & 7.175

Colonne II

JFM B

Frs.-

Arpege

870 2.616. -

871 4. 025. -

862 3. 140. -

863 4. 589. -

865 20. 721. -

866 38. 640. -

850 5. 474. -

Rumbus

PRETEXTE

569-769 757.-

528-728 1. 248. -

771 3. 522. -

562-762 2. 717. -

Scandal

My Sin

969-69 644.-

928-28 990.-

70 1. 489. -

62 2. 093. -

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 Cust. Ct. 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-int-fwders-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1959.