Myerson Tooth Corp. v. United States

61 Cust. Ct. 540, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2121
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedNovember 27, 1968
DocketR.D. 11597; Entry No. A2255
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 61 Cust. Ct. 540 (Myerson Tooth Corp. 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
Myerson Tooth Corp. v. United States, 61 Cust. Ct. 540, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2121 (cusc 1968).

Opinion

Donlon, Judge:

Plastic artificial teeth, imported in 1963 at Boston from Trinidad, were appraised on the basis of constructed value. Plaintiff claims that there is an export value for the merchandise, and that the invoice prices are the export value. While plaintiff’s statement, filed pursuant to Eule 15, made certain alternative claims to appraisement on the basis not only of export value, but also of United States value or constructed value, counsel for plaintiff in open court limited its case to the issue of export value.

Plaintiff further limited its case to six of the several items of merchandise included in the appraisement, abandoning the appeal as to all merchandise save only that identified on the invoice as Dura Blend Anteriors, Dura Blend Characterized Anteriora, Dura Blend Synchronized Posteriors, Dura Blend ELX Posteriors, Dura Blend Shear Kusp Posteriors and Myerson & Sears Dura Blend Posteriors.

Counsel have stipulated that the merchandise at bar is not included among the items enumerated in the so-called Final List of the Secretary of the Treasury, issued under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

[541]*541On an offer by defendant, the parties also stipulated that the exporter of the merchandise at bar, Myerson Tooth Company, Ltd., of Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, is plaintiff’s wholly owned subsidiary and that the merchandise at bar is solely exported “from Trinidad to the importer”. (R.10.) It is conceded that plaintiff, the importer, is what is known as a selected purchaser, as recited in 'amended section 402(f) (1) (B) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The relevant tariff provisions are as follows:

Sec. 402 (b) : Export value. For the purposes of this section, the export value of imported merchandise shall be the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing ap-praisement, at which such or similar merchandise is freely sold or, in-the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

Sec. 402(d): Constructed value. For the purposes of this section, the constructed value of imported merchandise shall be the sum of—

(1) the cost of materials (exclusive of any internal tax applicable in the country of exportation directly to such materials or their disposition, but remitted or refunded upon the exportation of the article in the production of which such materials are used) and of fabrication or other processing of any kind employed in producing such or similar merchandise, at a time preceding the date of exportation of the merchandise undergoing appraisement which would ordinarily permit the production of that particular merchandise in the ordinary course of business;
(2) an amount for general expenses and profit equal to that usually reflected in sales of merchandise of the same general class or kind as the merchandise undergoing appraisement which are made by producers in the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for shipment to the United States; and
(3) the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise undergoing appraisement in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

Sec. 402 (f) : Definitions. For the purposes of this section—

(1) The term “freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale” means sold or, in the absence of sales, offered—
(A) to all purchasers at wholesale, or
(B) in the ordinary course of trade to one or more selected purchasers at wholesale at a price which fairly reflects the market value of the merchandise,
[542]*542without restrictions as to the disposition or use of the merchandise by the purchaser, except restrictions as to such disposition or use which (i) are imposed or required by law, (ii) limit the price at which or the territory in which the merchandise may be resold, or (iii) do not substantially affect the value of the merchandise to usual purchasers at wholesale.
* ‡ ‡ ‡

Plaintiff adduced the testimony of two witnesses, one of them in rebuttal of defendant’s case, and also introduced several affidavits into evidence. Defendant introduced the report of a customs agent, with annexed exhibits which are part of that report. The official documents, transmitted to the court with plaintiff’s appeal, were received in evidence.

Defendant’s brief removes from contention several of the statutory elements of plaintiff’s claimed export value, reciting that

“the parties are in agreement that the involved sales were made in the ordinary course of trade; that the prices did not vary in accordance with the quantity purchased; that the location of the principal market was in the area of Port-of-'Spain, Trinidad; that the invoice prices included packing and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, ready for shipment to the United States; that the seller imposed no conditions or restrictions upon the purchaser’s use or disposition of the merchandise; that no similar merchandise was sold, or offered for sale, in the principal market of Trinidad for exportation to the United States (although' similar merchandise, manufactured elsewhere, was apparently sold in that market for home consumption); and that (if relevant) plaintiff purchased the involved merchandise for resale otherwise than at retail.” (Defendant brief, p. 9.)

Tliis leaves in contention, 'as both parties have made clear, the question whether the prices at which plaintiff, a selected purchaser,, bought the merchandise at bar, are prices that fairly reflect the market value of such merchandise at the time of exportation from Trinidad. If so, then the merchandise may be deemed to have been “freely sold” for export within the scope of section 402 (b), as defined in section 402 (f). If the prices of the merchandise on sale by plaintiff’s subsidiary to plaintiff do not fairly reflect the market value at the time of exportation from Trinidad, then the transaction does not meet the statutory test, the merchandise was not “freely sold”, and there is no export value.

As is well known, the provision of section 402(f) with respect to selected purchasers is a relatively new provision in tariff legislation. The leading case on selected purchasers is United States v. Acme Steel Company, 51 CCPA 81, C.A.D. 841, affirming idem, 50 Cust. Ct. 529, A.R.D.152.

[543]*543The court there stated that the “question of whether or not there was an export value for merchandise such as or similar to that here undergoing appraisement depends, therefore, upon the existence of sales in the ordinary course of trade at prices which fairly reflect the market value of the merchandise.” United States v. Acme Steel Company, 50 Cust. Ct. 529, at page 584.

In Acme the country of export was Canada.

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

Related

Ernest Lowenstein, Inc. v. United States
71 Cust. Ct. 201 (U.S. Customs Court, 1973)
United States v. Wood
71 Cust. Ct. 235 (U.S. Customs Court, 1973)
Schieffelin & Co. v. United States
71 Cust. Ct. 209 (U.S. Customs Court, 1973)
Mitsui & Co. v. United States
68 Cust. Ct. 266 (U.S. Customs Court, 1972)
Judson Sheldon International Corp. v. United States
67 Cust. Ct. 577 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
Service Afloat, Inc. v. United States
66 Cust. Ct. 519 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
Myerson Tooth Corp. v. United States
64 Cust. Ct. 860 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Ellis Silver Co. v. United States
63 Cust. Ct. 647 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
United States v. F. W. Myers & Co.
63 Cust. Ct. 706 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Dolliff & Co. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 948 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 Cust. Ct. 540, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myerson-tooth-corp-v-united-states-cusc-1968.