Cost Plus, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Cost Plus, Inc. v. United States

72 Cust. Ct. 139, 1974 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3053

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedApril 18, 1974

DocketC.D. 4516; Court No. 69/33642

StatusPublished

This text of 72 Cust. Ct. 139 (Cost Plus, 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

Cost Plus, Inc. v. United States, 72 Cust. Ct. 139, 1974 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3053 (cusc 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Righaedson, Judge:

The merchandise at bar, consisting of tableware sets, was classified in liquidation under items 651.75 and 650.49, TSUS, at the duty rate of 37.36 per centum ad valorem*. It is claimed by the plaintiff-importer that the merchandise should be classified as sets under items 651.75 and 650.49, TSUS, at the duty rate of 0.9 cent each plus 15.5 per centum ad valorem.

In its complaint plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the subject merchandise is similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of Import Associates of America, Fraser’s Inc. v. [140]*140United States, 56 CCPA 100, C.A.D. 961 (1969), and further, requests that judgment issue directing the district director to reliquidate the involved entry or entries under items 651.75 and 650.49, TSUS, in accordance with its claim. In its answer the defendant admits all of the allegations of the complaint, and consents to the entry of judgment overruling the manner of assessment of duty by the district director and sustaining plaintiff’s claim as to the tableware sets.

In the case cited in the complaint the merchandise consisted of flatware sets of various kinds of knives, forks, and spoons imported from West Germany and Japan, classified in liquidation under item 651.75, TSUS, among other things, and assessed with duty at the ad 'valorem equivalent of the highest specific or compound rate applicable to any article in the set. The Customs Court sustained the protest lodged against the duty assessment, and held that the specific or compound rate of duty which is the highest for any article in the set if imported alone should be used in determining the duty and not the ad valorem equivalent, and further, that the applicable specific duty should be assessed against each article in the set. This latter holding of the Customs Court was sustained in the cited case on appeal to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals as against the importer’s contention in the appellate court that the specific duty assessment should be made against the set rather than against each article in the set.

In the instant case defendant admits that the merchandise at bar is similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of the cited case. Consequently, inasmuch as the pleadings fail to raise any triable issue in the case the necessity for further proceedings in the action is obviated.

Plaintiff’s claim for classification of the subject merchandise under items 651.75 and 650.49, TSUS, as sets at the duty rate of 0.9 cent each plus 15.5 per centum ad valorem is sustained. Judgment will be entered herein accordingly.

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

Righaedson, Judge:

The merchandise at bar, consisting of tableware sets, was classified in liquidation under items 651.75 and 650.49, TSUS, at the duty rate of 37.36 per centum ad valorem*. It is claimed by the plaintiff-importer that the merchandise should be classified as sets under items 651.75 and 650.49, TSUS, at the duty rate of 0.9 cent each plus 15.5 per centum ad valorem.

In its complaint plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the subject merchandise is similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of Import Associates of America, Fraser’s Inc. v. [140]*140United States, 56 CCPA 100, C.A.D. 961 (1969), and further, requests that judgment issue directing the district director to reliquidate the involved entry or entries under items 651.75 and 650.49, TSUS, in accordance with its claim. In its answer the defendant admits all of the allegations of the complaint, and consents to the entry of judgment overruling the manner of assessment of duty by the district director and sustaining plaintiff’s claim as to the tableware sets.

In the case cited in the complaint the merchandise consisted of flatware sets of various kinds of knives, forks, and spoons imported from West Germany and Japan, classified in liquidation under item 651.75, TSUS, among other things, and assessed with duty at the ad 'valorem equivalent of the highest specific or compound rate applicable to any article in the set. The Customs Court sustained the protest lodged against the duty assessment, and held that the specific or compound rate of duty which is the highest for any article in the set if imported alone should be used in determining the duty and not the ad valorem equivalent, and further, that the applicable specific duty should be assessed against each article in the set. This latter holding of the Customs Court was sustained in the cited case on appeal to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals as against the importer’s contention in the appellate court that the specific duty assessment should be made against the set rather than against each article in the set.

In the instant case defendant admits that the merchandise at bar is similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of the cited case. Consequently, inasmuch as the pleadings fail to raise any triable issue in the case the necessity for further proceedings in the action is obviated.

Plaintiff’s claim for classification of the subject merchandise under items 651.75 and 650.49, TSUS, as sets at the duty rate of 0.9 cent each plus 15.5 per centum ad valorem is sustained. Judgment will be entered herein accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Cust. Ct. 139, 1974 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cost-plus-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1974.