Paramount Textile Machinery Co. v. United States

62 Cust. Ct. 936, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3476
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMay 1, 1969
DocketR.D. 11665; Entry No. 3096, etc.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 Cust. Ct. 936 (Paramount Textile Machinery 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
Paramount Textile Machinery Co. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 936, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3476 (cusc 1969).

Opinion

Ford, Judge:

These consolidated appeals for reappraisement cover certain preboarding machines exported from England between December 5,1960 and January 27,1965 by Samuel Pegg & Son, Ltd., of Leicester, England (hereinafter referred to as Pegg) to Paramount Textile Machinery Co. of Chicago, the actual importer herein. These machines, whose nature and function will be detailed in due course, were considered by the appraiser to be listed on the Final List of the Secretary of the Treasury, 93 Treas. Dec. 14, T.D. 54521, and hence subject to appraisal in accordance with the “old” valuation provisions of section 402a of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956,91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165. Accordingly, the merchandise was appraised on the basis of foreign value as defined in section 402a (c) of said act, as amended.

Plaintiffs claim that the instant machines are not on the Final List, supra, and hence should be appraised on the basis of the “new” law; more specifically, under export value as defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956,91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165. In the alternative, plaintiffs claim that cost of production as defined in section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for valuation, if the importation is indeed on tire Final List.

The relevant statutory and nonstatutory material read as follows:

Section 402a (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, supra.

(c) FoReign Value. — The foreign value of imported merchandise shall be the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whaJtever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

Section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended:

(f) Cost oe Production. — For the purpose of this title the cost of production of imported merchandise shall be the sum of—
(1) The cost of materials of, and of fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or similar merchandise, at a time preceding the [938]*938date of exportation of the particular merchandise under consideration which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production of the particular merchandise under consideration in the usual course of business;
(2) The usual general expenses (not less than 10 per centum of such cost) in the case of such or similar merchandise;
(3) The cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the particular merchandise under consideration in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States; and
(4) An addition for profit (not less than 8 per centum of the sum of the amounts found under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subdivision) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added, in the case of merchandise of the same general character as the particular merchandise under consideration, by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture or production who are engaged in the production or manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind.

Final List of the Secretary of the Treasury, 93 Treas. Dec. 14, T.D. 54521, at page 34:

Machinery, for bleaching, printing, dyeing or finishing textiles, and parts thereof

Section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended:

(b) ExpoRt Value.' — For the purpose 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 appraisement, 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.

Section 402(f) (1) (B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended:

(f) DnnNiTioisrs.' — 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—
Hs i\i * Hi * H< ❖
(B) in the ordinary course of trade to one or more selected purchasers at a price which fairly reflects the market value of the merchandise.

Plaintiffs made a claim for cost of production as the basis of ap-praisement in previous litigation involving preboarding machines. [939]*939Paramount Textile Machinery Co. v. United States, 52 Cust. Ct. 392, Reap. Dec. 10654, affirmed in Paramount Textile Machinery Co. v. United States, 56 Cust. Ct. 761, A.R.D. 202. In that case plaintiff endeavored to show as a prelude to its claim under cost of production, that the use of foreign value as a basis for reappraisement was inappropriate due to the fact that the instant machines were not freely offered for home consumption as required by the statute. Plaintiff attempted to prove, by the affidavit of Guy S. Helliwell, then managing director of Pegg, that it restricted sales of preboarding machines to manufacturers of hosiery and refused to sell to machine dealers and distributors. This court held that plaintiff had failed to show that its “restrictions” consisted of anything more than an emphasis on sales to manufacturers and had failed to prove any concrete restrictions or exclusions of any class of purchasers. The record in that case has been incorporated herein.

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

Related

Wilfred Schade & Co. v. United States
68 Cust. Ct. 35 (U.S. Customs Court, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Cust. Ct. 936, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paramount-textile-machinery-co-v-united-states-cusc-1969.