Mittlemann v. United States

25 Cust. Ct. 435, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 662
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedSeptember 27, 1950
DocketNo. 7886; Entry No. 767543
StatusPublished

This text of 25 Cust. Ct. 435 (Mittlemann 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
Mittlemann v. United States, 25 Cust. Ct. 435, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 662 (cusc 1950).

Opinion

Cole, Judge:

Wool sweaters, imported from Italy, were entered at the invoice prices which the appraiser advanced approximately 20 per centum. Plaintiff has appealed for reappraisement, contending cost of production, section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)),1 to be the proper basis for appraisement and claiming that the invoice values are representative of such statutory value.

[436]*436At the outset, it should be emphasized that the importer, as the-appealing party, has assumed the burden not only of overcoming the-presumption of correctness attached to the appraiser’s valuation but. also of proving the correct dutiable value. United States v. Malhame & Co., 19 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 164, T. D. 45276; Harry Garbey v. United States, 24 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 48, T. D. 48332.

Plaintiff has failed to meet its obligation. Testimony of two-members of the importing partnership tends to show that the sweaters-in question were manufactured under plaintiff’s supervision, specially for the market in this country, and that they are unlike those sold or offered for sale in the country of exportation, either for home consumption or for exportation to countries other than the United States. However, there is not one iota of evidence directed toward establishing-the cost of any of the elements entering into statutory cost of production, section 402 (f), supra.

The customs examiner, who advisorily returned the sweaters in question, admitted receiving subsequent shipments of substantially the same merchandise and was 'to produce papers showing prices, therefor, but such proof was never offered.

Plaintiff having failed to establish a price for the articles in question different from that found by the appraiser, which carries a statutory presumption of correctness, 28 U. S. C. § 2633, I therefore hold the appraised value to be the proper dutiable value. Judgment wilhbe rendered accordingly.

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

Related

§ 1402
19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)
Procedure and fees
28 U.S.C. § 2633

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Cust. Ct. 435, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mittlemann-v-united-states-cusc-1950.