Home/U.S. Customs Court/Cargill Grain Co. v. United States

Cargill Grain Co. v. United States

8 Cust. Ct. 41, 1942 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 4
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJanuary 7, 1942
DocketC. D. 579
StatusPublished

This text of 8 Cust. Ct. 41 (Cargill Grain Co. 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
Cargill Grain Co. v. United States, 8 Cust. Ct. 41, 1942 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 4 (cusc 1942).

Opinion

Keefe, Judge:

This action involves several shipments of rye from Poland. The plaintiff claims that insufficient allowance was made by the collector for impurities, etc., and duty was therefore assessed upon more merchandise than entered the commerce of the country.

At the trial counsel for the parties hereto entered into the following agreement as to the facts in the case.

It is heReby stipulated and aoreed, by and between the parties hereto, by their respective attorneys:
1. On November 21, 1934 the plaintiff herein made one importation (Entry #A-70069), hereinafter called the 1934 importation when referred to separately, and from time to time during the year 1935 made a total of nine importations, hereinafter called the 1935 importation when referred to separately, of Polish rye, a grain, at Albany, N. Y.
2. With respect to each importation, the importer made and completed an entry for consumption and deposited the estimated duties thereon, at which time the collector forthwith issued to the importer an official permit (Form 7501-A) for the delivery of the rye to the importer, a copy of a typical one of which is annexed hereto, and made a part hereof, marked “A”. No entry for warehouse was made with respect to any of said importations.
3. With respect to each of the 1935 importations, the Collector upon request of the importer and after the expiration of one day after the entry of the vessel, ordered that the rye be sent to tlie grain elevator owned and operated by the importer and located on Van Rensselaer Island in Albany, N. Y. With respect to five of the 1935 importations, such order was issued prior to the making of entry for consumption and deposit of estimated duties as set forth in paragraph 2 hereof. With respect to the remaining four of the 1935 importations, such order was issued subsequent to such entry for consumption and deposit of estimated [43]*43duties. A copy of a typical one of such orders, executed on Form 3193, entitled “ ‘General Order’ to Send Unpermitted Packages from Wharf to Public Store,” is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked “B”. With respect to the 1934 importations, no such order was issued.
4. With respect to the said grain elevator, the importer, prior to the time of the importations involved herein, pursuant to the provisions of Section 555 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, filed with the Collector its bond to constitute said grain elevator a bonded warehouse for the purposes set forth in said bond. This bond was in full force and effect at the time of each importation involved herein, and the said grain elevator was a bonded warehouse as authorized by said section 555 (a) to the extent and for the purposes set forth in the bond. A copy of said bond, together with a copy of a letter from the importer to the Collector, dated July 2, 1932, and a copy of a letter from the Deputy Collector in Charge to the Collector, dated July 12, 1932, relating to said bond, are annexed hereto, made a part hereof, and marked “C”.
5. With respect to each importation, the rye was inspected by the Department of Agriculture, and after the rye was placed in the said grain elevator, and after the making of entry for consumption, deposit of estimated duties, and issuance of the delivery permit, the Department of Agriculture made a finding that the rye was adulterated, consisting in whole or in part of filthy, decqgiposed or putrid vegetable substances, and contained animal excreta, and that it did not comply with the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. However, the Department of Agriculture granted permission to the importer to recondition the rye by removing the objectionable matter for destruction under Customs supervision. Upon such finding the Collector, pursuant to Article 541 (e) of the Customs Regulations of 1931, issued to the importer a statement of the violation, setting forth said condition that the rye might be thus reconditioned and the objectionable matter so destroyed. A copy of a typical one of such statements of violations and conditions (Form “F. D. 776a”) is annexed hereto, and made a part hereof, marked “D”.
6. After the issuance of each such statement of violation and condition, and after the making of entry for consumption, deposit of estimated duties, and issuance of the delivery permit, the importer with respect to each importation filed an application, using Customs Form 3499, to recondition the rye by drying and/or cleaning in the said grain elevator in order to comply with the said condition fixed by the Department of Agriculture. The Deputy Collector in charge at Albany issued a permit, with respect to each importation, for the operation requested. A copy of a typical one of such applications and permits is annexed hereto, made a part hereof, and marked “E”.
7. After the issuance of each such permit to recondition, the importer, while the rye was in said grain elevator, subjected it to various reconditioning processes, to wit, drying and/or cleaning, which was apparently done under Customs supervision.
8. As a result of such reconditioning processes, there were certain losses from the quantities originally placed in the said grain elevator after the unlading of the vessels. These losses were of three kinds:
(1) Losses amounting to 51050 bushels and 10 lbs. of visible impurities;
(2) Losses amounting to 164074 bushels, and 40 lbs. due to loss of moisture incurred in the drying process, and
(3) Invisible losses amounting to 98027 bushels and 50 lbs. incurred in the cleaning process.
. 9. With respect, to each of the 1935 importations, after such reconditioning had been effected, the importer lodged with the Collector the delivery permit which [44]*44had been issued to the importer at the time entry for consumption was made, as set forth in paragraph 2 hereof, and removed the reconditioned rye from the said grain elevator. With respect to the 1934 importation, the importer lodged such delivery permit with the Collector forthwith upon receiving it at the time said consumption entry was made. No warehouse withdrawal, as provided in Sections 556 and 557, Tariff Act of 1930, and article 324 of the Customs Regulations of 1931, was filed with respect to any of the importations.
10. The general procedure followed with respect to these importations, whereby no entries for warehouse were made, and the grain placed in the elevator under an order entitled “ ‘General Order’ to Send Unpermitted Packages from Wharf to Public Store,” was carried out in an effort to provide the importer with the privilege of storing the rye in a bonded elevator for a period of one full year under the provisions of Sections 490 and 491 of the Tariff Act of 1930 instead of for a period of ten months as then provided for storage of grain entered for warehouse, by Section 557 of said Tariff Act.
11. The entries were liquidated at 15 cents per bushel of 56 pounds under the provisions of paragraph 728, Tariff Act of 1930. There is no controversy herein relative to this classification.

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

Related

United States v. De Villamil
12 Ct. Cust. 255 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Cust. Ct. 41, 1942 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cargill-grain-co-v-united-states-cusc-1942.