Foo Chow Importing Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Foo Chow Importing Co. v. United States

23 Cust. Ct. 285, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1193

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedOctober 6, 1949

DocketNo. 7742; Entry No. 16604

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Cust. Ct. 285 (Foo Chow Importing 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

Foo Chow Importing Co. v. United States, 23 Cust. Ct. 285, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1193 (cusc 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for the reappraisement of bamboo ware and other merchandise imported from China and entered at the port of San Francisco on May 14, 1926. The goods were entered at the invoice unit prices, plus packing, plus an item of 153 Hong Kong dollars representing a (Chinese export tax, the latter amount being added under duress. The merchandise was appraised at the invoice unit prices, plus packing, plus 5 per centum.

This merchandise was before the court in reappraisement No. 133770-A, Foo Chow Importing Co. (Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni) v. United States, 14 Cust. Ct. 358, Reap. Dec. 6113, wherein it was held that the appraisement by the local appraiser was premature and invalid since it was made prior to the final determination of the test case cited in the certificate of pending reappraisement. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the papers returned to the appraiser in order that a valid appraisement might be made.

Subsequently, the merchandise was again appraised and this appeal filed. At the trial it was stipulated between counsel for the parties herein that the proper export value under the Tariff Act of 1922 was the invoice unit prices, plus packing, and that the foreign value, as defined in the Tariff Act of 1922, was no higher.

' On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1922 to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the invoice unit prices, plus packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

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

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for the reappraisement of bamboo ware and other merchandise imported from China and entered at the port of San Francisco on May 14, 1926. The goods were entered at the invoice unit prices, plus packing, plus an item of 153 Hong Kong dollars representing a (Chinese export tax, the latter amount being added under duress. The merchandise was appraised at the invoice unit prices, plus packing, plus 5 per centum.

This merchandise was before the court in reappraisement No. 133770-A, Foo Chow Importing Co. (Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni) v. United States, 14 Cust. Ct. 358, Reap. Dec. 6113, wherein it was held that the appraisement by the local appraiser was premature and invalid since it was made prior to the final determination of the test case cited in the certificate of pending reappraisement. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the papers returned to the appraiser in order that a valid appraisement might be made.

Subsequently, the merchandise was again appraised and this appeal filed. At the trial it was stipulated between counsel for the parties herein that the proper export value under the Tariff Act of 1922 was the invoice unit prices, plus packing, and that the foreign value, as defined in the Tariff Act of 1922, was no higher.

' On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1922 to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the invoice unit prices, plus packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Cust. Ct. 285, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foo-chow-importing-co-v-united-states-cusc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack