Danwill Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Danwill Co. v. United States

37 Cust. Ct. 498

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedSeptember 7, 1956

DocketReap. Dec. 8639; Entry No. 700786

StatusPublished

This text of 37 Cust. Ct. 498 (Danwill 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

Danwill Co. v. United States, 37 Cust. Ct. 498 (cusc 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Laweence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of this decision, present the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain binder mechanisms imported from France.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact whereby it has been agreed that, on or about the dates of exportation of the [499]*499said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the countries of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption or for export to the United States, and that such or similar imported merchandise was not, at the aforesaid time, freely offered for sale in the United States for domestic consumption therein. It was further stipulated and agreed that cost of production is represented by the invoice unit prices, less charges for transport, freight, and insurance, as invoiced, packed.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. O. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the binder mechanisms in controversy, and that said value is represented by the invoice unit prices, less charges for transport, freight, and insurance, as invoiced, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

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

Laweence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of this decision, present the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain binder mechanisms imported from France.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact whereby it has been agreed that, on or about the dates of exportation of the [499]*499said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the countries of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption or for export to the United States, and that such or similar imported merchandise was not, at the aforesaid time, freely offered for sale in the United States for domestic consumption therein. It was further stipulated and agreed that cost of production is represented by the invoice unit prices, less charges for transport, freight, and insurance, as invoiced, packed.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. O. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the binder mechanisms in controversy, and that said value is represented by the invoice unit prices, less charges for transport, freight, and insurance, as invoiced, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Cust. Ct. 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danwill-co-v-united-states-cusc-1956.