Charles Happel, Inc. v. United States

23 Cust. Ct. 250, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1166
United States Customs Court·Decided July 11, 1949·No. No. 7715; Entry No. 723018, etc.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Cline, Judge:

These are appeals for reappraisement of various shipments of soy sauce, plum sauce, fruit sauce, salted soy beans, and bamboo shoots, exported from Cuba between December 21, 1943, and April 19, 1944. The following is a table of the items of merchandise involved herein together with their respective entered and appraised values:

Reappt, No. Description Entered Value Appraised Value
157490-A Spiced, salted soy beans (cooked black beans) 10 cts. per lb. plus 60 ets. case 28 cts. per lb. plus 60 ets. box, all other packing costs included
157491-A Spiced, salted soy beans (cooked black beans) 8 cts. per lb. plus 50 cts. case 28 cts. per lb. plus 50 cts. tin, all other packing costs included
Fruit sauce, soy bean sauce, and plum sauce in 5-lb. tins 14 cts. per lb. plus 50 cts. case $1.25 tin packed
Fruit sauce, 50-lb. tin 10 cts. per lb. plus 50 cts. case 21 cts. per lb. packed
Soy bean sauce, 50-lb. tin 8 cts. per lb. plus 50 cts. case 20 cts. per lb. packed
Soy bean sauce, 100-lb. barrel 10 cts. per lb. plus 80 cts. per barrel 20 cts. per lb. packed
Soy sauce, 100-lb. barrel 12 cts. per lb. plus 80 cts. bbl. 21 ets. per lb. packed
Bamboo shoots, 1-lb. tin 12 cts. lb. plus 50 cts. case 34 cts. per tin packed
Bamboo shoots, 5-lb. tin 10 cts. per lb. plus 50 cts. case $1.10 per tin packed
[251] Reappt. No. Description Entered Value Appraised Value
157492-A Spiced, salted soy beans (soy beans, prepared) 10 ets. lb. plus 80 cts. case 28 cts. per lb. phis 50 cts. tin, all other packing costs included
Soy sauce, 100-lb. barrel 10 cts. lb. and 12 cts. lb. plus 80 cts. barrel 21 cts. per lb. packed
157493-A Spiced, salted soy beans (soy beans, prepared) 8 cts. lb. plus 60 cts. case 28 cts. per lb. plus 50 cts. tin, all other packing costs included
Soy sauce, 100-lb. barrel 10 cts. per lb. and 12 cts. per lb. plus 60 cts. bbl. 21 cts. per lb. packed.
Fruit sauce, 50-lb. tins 10'ets. lb. plus 60 cts. ■ case 21 cts. lb. packed

The importer claims that the entered value of each item, as represented on the consular invoice, is the correct dutiable value of said item; that the foreign and export values are the same; and that such values are the entered values. The Government contends that the appraised values are the correct dutiable export values of such or similar merchandise.

It is incumbent upon the plaintiff in reappraisement cases to meet every material issue involved, to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the appraiser’s valuation, and to prove the-correct dutiable value. Meadows, Wye & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. 36, T. D. 43324; United States v. T. D. Downing Co., 20 C. C. P. A. 251, T. D. 46057; Harry Garbey v. United States, 24 C. C. P. A. 48, T. D. 48332; Transatlantic Shipping Co., Inc. (Absorbo Beer Pad Co., Inc.) v. United States, 28 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 118.

In order to meet this burden, plaintiff introduced into evidence a. sworn statement of Enrique W. Chong, dated August 15,1947, together with a translation thereof (plaintiff’s collective exhibit' 1). Enrique W. Chong states in this affidavit:

I sold and shipped to Mon Fong Wo, New York City, New York, U. S. A., the merchandise enumerated on the consular invoices No. 63, dated Havana, Cuba, December 1943; No. 71, dated Havana, Cuba, December, 1943; No. 2120, dated Havana, Cuba, February, 1944 and No. 6663, dated Havana, Cuba, April, 1944.
The respective prices stated on the consular invoieés for the merchandise-therein described, were at the time of each shipment, the market value or the price at those times for exportation of such merchandise to the United States of for sale in Havana, Cuba, which is the principal market in Cuba. Said merchandise was freely offered for sale by me to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade and in the usual wholesale quantity.

The affiant described the method of manufacturing soy sauce and stated that variations in the prices of soy sauce and other articles,, [252] such as fruit sauce and bamboo sauce, were due to differences in grade, quality, color, taste, consistency, and character.

This affidavit, which is unsupported by price lists or other evidences of sales or offers to sell, is entitled to little weight in and of itself. Golding Bros. Co., Inc. v. United States, 6 Cust. Ct. 964, Reap. Dec. 5272; Jenkins Brothers v. United States, 25 C. C. P. A. 90, T. D. 49093; Transatlantic Shipping Co., Inc. (Absorbo Beer Pad Co., Inc.) v. United States, supra. Moreover, the veracity of the statement is open to grave doubt in view of certain documents introduced into evidence by the defendant.

According to a report of Treasury Representative Wilson C. Beers, dated March 20, 1945 (defendant's exhibit 2), Enrique Wong Chong stated that his firm never sold or offered merchandise identical or similar to any involved herein for sale to any firms or buyers for home consumption or to any firms in the United States other than Mon Fong Wo Co.; that all the consular invoices were prepared by P. de Pool Pilar; that Enrique Wong Chong would sign 40 or 50 consular invoice forms in blank and that P. de Pool Pilar would prepare them and attend to all further details relative to the execution thereof without showing him any copies; that the dates of orders inserted therein by P. de Pool Pilar were false, fictitious, and of no significance whatever, since the firm had actually never received any orders from the importer but simply shipped merchandise in pursuance of a general arrangement; that the prices shown in column 11 of the consular invoices as representing current prices for export were inserted by P. de Pool Pilar and the significance thereof was unknown to Enrique Wong Chong; that the prices on the consular invoices were equivalent to the prices at which he purchased from Chinese manufacturers in Cuba, plus an addition of .25 to 33)i percent to cover expenses and profit.

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

Charles Happel, Inc. v. United States, 23 Cust. Ct. 250, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1166 (cusc 1949).

23 Cust. Ct. 250 (Charles Happel, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fisher Scientific Co. v. United States
25 Cust. Ct. 418 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
Butler Bros. v. United States
25 Cust. Ct. 404 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
S. P. Skinner & Co. v. United States
24 Cust. Ct. 636 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)