Hirschbach & Smith, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Hirschbach & Smith, Inc. v. United States

17 Cust. Ct. 283, 1946 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 827

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedAugust 12, 1946

DocketNo. 6320; Entry No. 740729, etc.

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Cust. Ct. 283 (Hirschbach & Smith, 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

Hirschbach & Smith, Inc. v. United States, 17 Cust. Ct. 283, 1946 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 827 (cusc 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Cole, Judge:

The issues involved in these appeals for reappraisement of wool wearing apparel are- concededly the same as those decided in United States v. Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc., 32 C. C. P. A. 187, C. A. D. 305, the record in which case has been incorporated herein by consent of the parties.

The incorporated case found cost of production, section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (f)), to be the proper basis for appraisement, and held that the so-called British purchase tax described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act. 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48,” was not an item to be included in the “usual general expenses” contemplated within subdivision (2) of section 492 (f), supra, and therefore not to be calculated in determining such statutory value.

On the agreement of counsel — set forth in the stipulation of submission — that the several elements entering into the statutory cost of production of the merchandise in question is equal to the appraised values thereof, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, I hold such values to be the cost of production, section 402 (f), supra, which I find to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

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

Cole, Judge:

The issues involved in these appeals for reappraisement of wool wearing apparel are- concededly the same as those decided in United States v. Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc., 32 C. C. P. A. 187, C. A. D. 305, the record in which case has been incorporated herein by consent of the parties.

The incorporated case found cost of production, section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (f)), to be the proper basis for appraisement, and held that the so-called British purchase tax described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act. 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48,” was not an item to be included in the “usual general expenses” contemplated within subdivision (2) of section 492 (f), supra, and therefore not to be calculated in determining such statutory value.

On the agreement of counsel — set forth in the stipulation of submission — that the several elements entering into the statutory cost of production of the merchandise in question is equal to the appraised values thereof, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, I hold such values to be the cost of production, section 402 (f), supra, which I find to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Cust. Ct. 283, 1946 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirschbach-smith-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1946.