Home/U.S. Customs Court/Fergus Imported Cars, Inc. v. United States

Fergus Imported Cars, Inc. v. United States

52 Cust. Ct. 437, 1964 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1417
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedFebruary 5, 1964
DocketReap. Dec. 10675; Entry No. 744881
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 52 Cust. Ct. 437 (Fergus Imported Cars, 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
Fergus Imported Cars, Inc. v. United States, 52 Cust. Ct. 437, 1964 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1417 (cusc 1964).

Opinion

Bao, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of an importation of 40 passenger automobiles, manufactured and exported from Germany by Carl F. W. Borgward GmbH of Bremen. The cars involved are identified as Borgward Isabella automobiles of the following types — Sedan (Limousine), Model TS, Model TS Deluxe, and Combi.

The details of appraisement and of the contention of plaintiff with respect to the alleged proper value of said merchandise are set forth in the following stipulation of facts agreed upon by counsel for the respective parties:

1. It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Oourt, that at the time of exportation of the imported automobiles, such or similar automobiles were not freely offered for sale or sold in the country of exportation for home consumption or for export to the United States, or freely offered for sale or sold in the United States for domestic consumption, as defined in Section 402a (c), (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.
2. It is further stipulated that said automobiles are subject to appraisement on the basis of cost of production as defined in Section 402a (f) of said amended Tariff Act.
3. It is further stipulated that said automobiles were appraised on the basis of cost of production as shown in the schedule “A” in German Marks (hereto annexed and forming a part of this stipulation), plus extras in United States dollars shown in red ink amounts as items X on the invoices. The papers used upon entry are to be considered in evidence without being specifically so marked.
4. Plaintiff concedes that the item indicated in the schedule under item 1 therein, in paragraph “3” supra as “Development and testing including Design”, refers to the item shown in Sub Exhibit “A” and “G” as “Entwicklung, Versuehe”, but plaintiff contends that it is a capital item and forms no part of said cost of production, alternatively, if the Court holds said item is not a capital item, it is plaintiff’s claim that said item is a usual general expense. Plaintiff concedes that the item indicated as “Inspections station laboris the same as the item shown in Sub Exhibits “A” and “G” as “Kontrallstellen”, and contends however, that it is a usual general expense.
5. The defendant contends that said disputed items referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4, form part of the cost of materials and fabrication, etc., and are properly part of the statutory cost of production as determined by the appraiser.
6. It is further stipulated that all other items making up the cost of production as determined by the appraiser are correct.
7. It is also agreed that the certified report of Arno Hellthaler, Acting Senior Customs Representative, Frankfurt, Germany, dated September 22, 1959, file #3-709/952 consisting of two pages and attached Exhibits “A” and “G” be received in evidence and marked Defendant’s collective Exhibit “1”.
8. It is further stipulated that this case be submitted for decision upon the foregoing stipulated facts and Defendant’s Collective Exhibit “1”, and that the plaintiff have up to 60 days after the date of notice of the Courts’ approval of this stipulation to file its brief herein, and that the defendant’s have up to 60 days after service upon it of plaintiff’s brief, within which to file its brief.

[439]

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

Related

United States v. Border Brokerage Co.
66 Cust. Ct. 639 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
Goodrich-Gulf Chemicals, Inc. v. United States
66 Cust. Ct. 509 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
Troy Textiles, Inc. v. United States
64 Cust. Ct. 654 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Chas. Kurz Co. v. United States
58 Cust. Ct. 852 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)
Myers v. United States
58 Cust. Ct. 653 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 Cust. Ct. 437, 1964 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fergus-imported-cars-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1964.