Naumes Forwarding Service v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Naumes Forwarding Service v. United States

37 Cust. Ct. 490

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedAugust 31, 1956

DocketReap. Dec. 8632; Entry No. 5167

StatusPublished

This text of 37 Cust. Ct. 490 (Naumes Forwarding Service 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

Naumes Forwarding Service v. United States, 37 Cust. Ct. 490 (cusc 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been [491]*491limited, by stipulation between tbe parties, to “sewing machines, sewing machine heads or parts of sewing machines exported from Germany” that are covered by the entries listed in said schedule “A.”

These appeals are before me on an agreed set of facts, sufficient to establish that cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for appraisement, and that such statutory value for the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is the appraised value, less the amount added under duress, and I so hold.

As to all other merchandise covered by these appeals for reappraisement, they have been abandoned, and are, therefore, dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been [491]*491limited, by stipulation between tbe parties, to “sewing machines, sewing machine heads or parts of sewing machines exported from Germany” that are covered by the entries listed in said schedule “A.”

These appeals are before me on an agreed set of facts, sufficient to establish that cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for appraisement, and that such statutory value for the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is the appraised value, less the amount added under duress, and I so hold.

As to all other merchandise covered by these appeals for reappraisement, they have been abandoned, and are, therefore, dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Cust. Ct. 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naumes-forwarding-service-v-united-states-cusc-1956.