Orientex, Ltd. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Orientex, Ltd. v. United States

26 Cust. Ct. 706, 1951 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 742

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 28, 1951

DocketNo. 8005; Entry No. 126

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Cust. Ct. 706 (Orientex, Ltd. 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

Orientex, Ltd. v. United States, 26 Cust. Ct. 706, 1951 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 742 (cusc 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of rubber toys imported from Japan on or about August 6, 1949.

When the case was called for trial, counsel for the Government stated:

MR. Vitale: May it please the court, before leaving New York I telephoned the office of the plaintiff in this case situated in New York at 350 Broadway, and spoke to a person who identified himself as Mr. Mayo, who stated to Government counsel that they would not appear to prosecute their case; and since there has been no appearance here this morning, your Honor, please, I ask that the case be submitted, in accordance with the court rules, and I move for judgment sustaining the presumptively correct appraised value.

The case was therefore marked submitted. There is nothing in the record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the appraiser’s action. I find, therefore, that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value is the appraised value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

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

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of rubber toys imported from Japan on or about August 6, 1949.

When the case was called for trial, counsel for the Government stated:

MR. Vitale: May it please the court, before leaving New York I telephoned the office of the plaintiff in this case situated in New York at 350 Broadway, and spoke to a person who identified himself as Mr. Mayo, who stated to Government counsel that they would not appear to prosecute their case; and since there has been no appearance here this morning, your Honor, please, I ask that the case be submitted, in accordance with the court rules, and I move for judgment sustaining the presumptively correct appraised value.

The case was therefore marked submitted. There is nothing in the record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the appraiser’s action. I find, therefore, that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value is the appraised value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Cust. Ct. 706, 1951 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orientex-ltd-v-united-states-cusc-1951.