Rice v. United States

3 Cust. Ct. 526, 1939 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2933
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJuly 26, 1939
DocketNo. 4623; Entry No. 741991, etc.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 Cust. Ct. 526 (Rice 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
Rice v. United States, 3 Cust. Ct. 526, 1939 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2933 (cusc 1939).

Opinion

Tilson, Judge:

The merchandise involved in these five appeals consists of silk piece goods imported from Japan and entered at New York on September 22, October 4, November 5 and 16, and December 4, 1937. In reappraisement 121719-A the merchandise is described as “300 Pieces Raw Kawamata 3}^/ 48" x 63 yds.” and was entered at 21.30 yen plus packing per piece, and was appraised at $7.10 per piece, less certain nondutiable charges “Export Value to US.” In reappraisement 122012-A the merchandise is invoiced as “200 Pieces Raw Kawamata 3K/48 x 63 yds.” and was entered under duress, citing entry 741991 and was appraised as entered. In reappraisement 122587-A the merchandise was invoiced as “100 Pieces Rawa Kawa-mata Habutai-4/48 x 63 yds.”, and was entered at '23.50 yen and appraised at $7.60 per piece, less certain nondutiable charges “Export Value to US.” In reappraisement 122666-A the merchandise was invoiced as “300 Pieces Raw Kawamata Habutae 3K/48" x 63 yds.”, was entered under duress, citing entry 741991, and appraised as entered. In reappraisement 123020-A the merchandise was invoiced as “150 Pieces Raw Kawamata 3K/48 x 63 yds.”, was entered at 20.75 yen, plus bales and packing, and was appraised at $6.75 less certain nondutiable charges “Export Value to The US.”

No testimony was offered at the trial of this case. However, counsel for the respective parties agreed “that the shipments are in the usual wholesale quantities; that Kobe is the principal market, or ■one of the principal markets, in Japan for this type of merchandise; [527]*527and that the export value is the correct basis of appraisal.” The plaintiff also offered an affidavit executed by one Harold Stannett Williams, which was marked Exhibit 1, and the defendant offered a special agent’s report made by one Martin G. Scott, which was marked Exhibit 2.

Counsel for the defendant insists in his brief filed herein that although he conceded at the trial the export value was the proper basis for appraisement, there is not any evidence to establish such a value, and that therefore the appeals should be dismissed or the appraised value affirmed.

Counsel for the respective parties appeared to agree that the merchandise was appraised at a value representing the actual price paid for the same, but counsel for the plaintiff insists that this merchandise was bought during a falling market, and since it was not shipped for approximately two months after it was purchased, that the prices paid for the merchandise do not represent the actual value of the merchandise.

The-following is quoted from the affidavit, marked Exhibit 1:

That from eleven years personal experience in the business of buying and selling silk piece goods in the principal markets of Japan for such merchandise, he has full knowledge of the facts attending the purchase and sale of Raw Kawa-mata Habutai Silk Piece Goods generally and particularly with reference to such merchandise sold to Ferdinand Rice of New York, N. Y., and shipped under consular invoices set out below.
That at all times herein mentioned he was fully informed on the market value and the price at which such merchandise was sold and freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States.
That such merchandise of the following descriptions was so freely offered for sale on the several dates and at the prices shown below.
Raw Kawamata Habutai Silk Piece Goods 48 inches by 68 yards

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

Related

G. R. Bolton, Inc. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 868 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Cust. Ct. 526, 1939 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-united-states-cusc-1939.