Dana Perfumes Corp. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Dana Perfumes Corp. v. United States

61 Cust. Ct. 678, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1693

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedNovember 7, 1968

DocketNo. R68/40; reappraisements R68/10251 and R68/11477 (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 61 Cust. Ct. 678 (Dana Perfumes Corp. 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

Dana Perfumes Corp. v. United States, 61 Cust. Ct. 678, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1693 (cusc 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc. v. United, States (57 Cust. Ct. 727, A.R.D. 210), the court found and held that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f), Tariff Act of 1980, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the “Canoe” cologne here involved and that such value per bottle of the involved merchandise is as stated in schedule “B,” said schedule “B” being attached to and made a part of the decision, plus the pro rata share of the cost of packing as indicated on the invoices.

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

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc. v. United, States (57 Cust. Ct. 727, A.R.D. 210), the court found and held that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f), Tariff Act of 1980, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the “Canoe” cologne here involved and that such value per bottle of the involved merchandise is as stated in schedule “B,” said schedule “B” being attached to and made a part of the decision, plus the pro rata share of the cost of packing as indicated on the invoices.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Cust. Ct. 678, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dana-perfumes-corp-v-united-states-cusc-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack