Old Delft Optical Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Old Delft Optical Co. v. United States

51 Cust. Ct. 293, 1963 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1304

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedSeptember 9, 1963

DocketV.D. 126; Entry No. 845924

StatusPublished

This text of 51 Cust. Ct. 293 (Old Delft Optical Co. 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

Old Delft Optical Co. v. United States, 51 Cust. Ct. 293, 1963 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1304 (cusc 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the third division of this court in Old Delft Optical Co., Inc. v. United States, 47 Cust. Ct. 365, Abstract 66210. The conclusion therein, and the judgment issued pursuant thereto, were to the effect that since no proper notice of appraisement was sent by the collector to the consignee, his agent, or attorney, the appraisement of the merchandise and the subsequent liquidation were invalid. The protest was, therefore, dismissed and the matter was remanded to a single judge in reappraisement to determine the proper dutiable value, in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)), of the 25 scanning stereoscopes, exported from Holland in December 1957, which are covered by the entry involved herein.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the present merchandise, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is 1,750 florins for each scanning stereoscope, plus packing, as invoiced, prorated.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the third division of this court in Old Delft Optical Co., Inc. v. United States, 47 Cust. Ct. 365, Abstract 66210. The conclusion therein, and the judgment issued pursuant thereto, were to the effect that since no proper notice of appraisement was sent by the collector to the consignee, his agent, or attorney, the appraisement of the merchandise and the subsequent liquidation were invalid. The protest was, therefore, dismissed and the matter was remanded to a single judge in reappraisement to determine the proper dutiable value, in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)), of the 25 scanning stereoscopes, exported from Holland in December 1957, which are covered by the entry involved herein.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the present merchandise, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is 1,750 florins for each scanning stereoscope, plus packing, as invoiced, prorated.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 Cust. Ct. 293, 1963 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/old-delft-optical-co-v-united-states-cusc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack