Pleissner v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 507, 1929 WL 28303, 1929 CCPA LEXIS 20
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedFebruary 16, 1929
DocketNo. 3152
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 16 Ct. Cust. 507 (Pleissner v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pleissner v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. 507, 1929 WL 28303, 1929 CCPA LEXIS 20 (ccpa 1929).

Opinion

GRAHAM, Presiding Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The appellant made a number of importations of woolen cloth from Germany, which were duly entered at the port of New York at the invoice unit price of $1.50 per meter. The invoices and the testimony disclose that whenever any particular color of such goods was imported in quantities less than 100 meters in length, additional charges were made by the exporter amounting to 5 per centum on all quantities between 100 meters and 50 meters and 10 per centum on any quantity less than 50 meters. In computing whether a total of 100 meters of any color had been imported, a number of shorter lengths, aggregating 100 meters or more, might be added.

The local appraiser appraised the goods at what he designated as their export value, arriving at this by taldng the unit prices, adding thereto the additional charges for short lengths, plus cases and plus inland freight; the importer had added to make dutiable value a turnover tax of three-fourths of 1 per centum, which seems to have been also added. The importer appealed to reappraisement. Justice Brown, sitting in reappraisement, rendered judgment appraising the goods at their foreign value — namely, invoice unit prices — plus cases plus three-fourths of 1 per centum tax. The Government and the importer filed cross errors and the appellate division reviewed the findings of Justice Brown. The result of this review was.a reversal of the judgment of appraisement. The decision of the appellate division was, in brief, that there was no export value shown by the record and that the goods should be appraised at their foreign value; that the dutiable value of the goods was their invoice unit price, plus additions for short lengths, plus cases, and plus tax. As to the claim of the importer that 100 meters constitutes the usual wholesale quantity, the opinion of the court states:

The claim is made by the importer that the usual wholesale quantity is 100 meters. The record, however, does not reveal that any additional charge is made by reason of what is termed by the importer “a sale at retail,” but an addition is made if pieces are in quantities less than 100 meters, as stated above, so the question of a wholesale quantity does not appear to be material in these cases. These additions are accounted for by reason of the fact that it takes more [509]*509labor and expense generally to produce short lengths than long ones. We think the record shows that there is a sale of short lengths in Germany at wholesale where the addition is made.
In the initial case — No. 68277-A — one item on the invoice covers 453.9 meters. It includes both 100-meter lengths and lengths less than 100 meters. The addition for short lengths on this item is $36.30. It is not disputed but that this amount is to be paid by the importer and the sole reason for deducting it is the adopted theory that 100 meters is a usual wholesale quantity and in 100-meter lengths the price is $1.50 per meter.

The importer has appealed from the judgment of the appellate division. On the hearing before this court counsel for both parties concede that there is a foreign value for the imported goods and that such foreign value is the dutiable value. There is, also, no issue made as to the invoice values. As we view the case, the only question arises as to the usual wholesale quantities. If 100 meters is the usual wholesale quantity, the importer’s contentions should prevail; if not, the judgment of the appellate division should be affirmed.

In order to dispose of the point suggested, the language of the statute defining “Foreign value” should be considered. That statute is section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1922, and is as follows:

402 (b). 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 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 whatever nature, and all other costs, charges,., and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

This language, it will be observed, specifies that the standard for fixing dutiable value shall be the price of the article, in the ordinary course of trade, and in the usual wholesale quantities. We had this statute under consideration in United States v. Richard & Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 143, T. D. 42216. We there observed:

We are unable to see, under the facts hereinbefore stated, where any such evidence appears in the record. The exporters are selling a minor portion of their product at the price claimed by the importer here, namely, list price less 10 per centum and 2% per centum. How may this properly be claimed to be the ordinary course of trade?
* ifi * * * * *
It is argued because sales to wholesalers are all made at the same price that therefore this price thus becomes the wholesale price. But it will be observed that the statute does not thus establish the wholesale price. Section 402 (b) does not provide that the wholesale price shall be the price to wholesalers, but the price in the usual wholesale quantities. The law' is not concerned with the persons who buy, but the manner in which they buy.

In addition to the suggestions above quoted, we may observe that a usual wholesale quantity is not alone a quantity which may be sold [510]*510at wholesale; it is perfectly possible for such a sale to be made and not be made in a usual wholesale quantity. An examination of this statute discloses that the Congress has used the words “ordinary” and “usual.” These words, apparently synonymous, are thus defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary (1925):

Ordinary, a. 1. According to established order; methodical; settled; regular. “The ordinary forms of law.” 2. Common; customary; usual.
Usual, a. Such as is in common use; such as occurs in ordinary practice, or in the ordinary course of events; customary; ordinary; habitual; common.

It seems quite obvious that the usual wholesale quantities, as used in this statute, should be held to refer to a major portion of the sales or offers for sale of the merchandise in question, and that sporadic sales or sales in minor quantities should not be held to constitute usual wholesale quantities. This being true, the record should be examined in order to disclose whether there is any substantial evidence therein to support the finding that less quantities than 100 meters of this cloth are usual wholesale quantities.

George W. Pleissner, the importer, testified: '

Q. (continuing). Now, will you please explain, Mr. Pleissner, what this “Add for short lengths” is and how it comes into the transaction? — A. These are all yard dress goods, and the basis for yard dress goods is 100 meters per color. That is the usual wholesale quantity. If less than the usual wholesale quantity is purchased there is an addition made of 5 per centum for lengths from 100 down to 80 meters, and of 10 per centum below 50 meters.

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

Related

Border Brokerage Co. v. United States
52 Cust. Ct. 567 (U.S. Customs Court, 1964)
United States v. Muehlstein
42 Cust. Ct. 760 (U.S. Customs Court, 1959)
United States v. A. N. Deringer, Inc.
42 Cust. Ct. 711 (U.S. Customs Court, 1959)
United States v. Antique Import Co.
40 Cust. Ct. 868 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Fisher Scientific Co. v. United States
35 Cust. Ct. 383 (U.S. Customs Court, 1955)
United States v. Jamison
31 Cust. Ct. 468 (U.S. Customs Court, 1953)
International Nickel Co. v. United States
27 Cust. Ct. 415 (U.S. Customs Court, 1951)
United States v. Whelan
26 Cust. Ct. 666 (U.S. Customs Court, 1951)
Whelan v. United States
25 Cust. Ct. 384 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
Ramallah Trading Co. v. United States
24 Cust. Ct. 558 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
Holt v. United States
23 Cust. Ct. 243 (U.S. Customs Court, 1949)
William J. Oberle, Inc. v. United States
5 Cust. Ct. 576 (U.S. Customs Court, 1940)
American Shipping Co. v. United States
4 Cust. Ct. 873 (U.S. Customs Court, 1940)
United States v. Rohner Gehrig & Co.
4 Cust. Ct. 864 (U.S. Customs Court, 1940)
United States v. Mexican Products Co.
28 C.C.P.A. 80 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1940)
United States v. Semon Bache & Co.
4 Cust. Ct. 595 (U.S. Customs Court, 1940)
Arkell Safety Bag Co. v. United States
3 Cust. Ct. 616 (U.S. Customs Court, 1939)
United States v. Schwartz Jewelry Co.
2 Cust. Ct. 1032 (U.S. Customs Court, 1939)
United States v. Bache
1 Cust. Ct. 781 (U.S. Customs Court, 1938)
United States v. Livingston & Southard, Inc.
23 C.C.P.A. 214 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Ct. Cust. 507, 1929 WL 28303, 1929 CCPA LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pleissner-v-united-states-ccpa-1929.