Kelman v. United States

28 Cust. Ct. 112, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 12
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMarch 11, 1952
DocketC. D. 1396
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 28 Cust. Ct. 112 (Kelman 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
Kelman v. United States, 28 Cust. Ct. 112, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 12 (cusc 1952).

Opinion

Ekwall, Judge:

This is a protest, arising at the port of New York, against the collector’s assessment of duty on dried beans, imported from Italy, at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 765 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It is claimed that the merchandise is properly dutiable at 1K cents per pound under said paragraph, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, and T. D. 52167.

The pertinent provisions of the tariff act and the trade agreement are as follows:

Par. 766. Beans, not specially provided for, and black-eye cowpeas: * * * dried, 3 cents per pound; * * *.
Par. 765 [as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802]. Beans, not specially provided for:
Dried, when entered for consumption during the period from May 1 to August 31, inclusive, in any year:
Red kidney_ 20 per lb.
Other_ 1J40 per lb.

Paragraph 765, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, became effective on March 16, 1949, pursuant to a Presidential proclamation dated March 8, 1949, T. D. 52167. Italy acceded to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as a result of trade negotiations held in 1949 at Annecy, France.

At the trial, counsel for the plaintiff offered in evidence as a collective exhibit the papers transmitted by the collector to the court, particularizing the entry and the withdrawal. The papers were received into evidence and both sides submitted.

It appears from the official papers that the merchandise herein was entered under warehouse entry on August 17,1949, and was withdrawn from warehouse on a duty-paid warehouse-withdrawal-for-consumption permit on August 31, 1949. The appraiser advisorily returned the merchandise to the collector for classification at the rate of 1){ cents per pound. The collector returned the invoice to the appraiser with the following notation:

Please review rate noting that par. 765 reads: “dried beans, N. S. P. F. when withdrawn from W. H. for consumtion [s?'c] at any time”, are dutiable at 30 per lb.

[114]*114The appraiser struck out bis return of lK cents per pound as noted on the consular invoice and substituted the rate of 3 cents per pound, dating the same February 15, 1950. The collector assessed the merchandise at the 3-cent rate and demanded the increased duties.

The question involved in this case is the construction to be given the words “when entered for consumption during the period from May 1 to August 31, inclusive, in any year” in the provision for dried beans in paragraph 765, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802. Plaintiff claims that the provision is intended to include merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the stated period. Under that construction, the merchandise herein would be entitled to the reduced rate since it was withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on August 31, 1949, the last day upon which the seasonal rate, was in effect in that year. Defendant claims, on the other hand, that the reduced rate is applicable only to merchandise which has been entered directly for consumption and not to merchandise withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the stated period.

In support of its contention, the Government refers to the following statement contained in “United States Import Duties (1950),” a publication issued by the United States Tariff Commission as of July 1, 1950, and a similar statement contained in a publication issued by that body as of June 15, 1948:

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

Related

A. W. Fenton Co. v. United States
55 C.C.P.A. 54 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1968)
A. W. Fenton Co. v. United States
55 Cust. Ct. 74 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)
Excel Shipping Corp. v. United States
44 Cust. Ct. 55 (U.S. Customs Court, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Cust. Ct. 112, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelman-v-united-states-cusc-1952.