Sipanam, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Sipanam, Inc. v. United States

39 Cust. Ct. 558

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJune 27, 1957

DocketReap. Dec. 8890; Entry No. 2874-H

StatusPublished

This text of 39 Cust. Ct. 558 (Sipanam, Inc. 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

Sipanam, Inc. v. United States, 39 Cust. Ct. 558 (cusc 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to merchandise, described in the stipulation of submission as “seamless steel A. P. I. oil well casing, grades J-55 and N-80,” that was shipped from Antwerp, Belgium, and entered at Houston, Tex.

The agreed set of facts, upon which counsel for the respective parties submitted the case, establishes that export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for ap-praisement of the merchandise in question, and that such statutory value is “$150. per metric ton for all sizes .of grade J-55 casing and $182. per metric ton for all sizes of grade N-80 casing,” and I so hold.

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 appeal for reappraisement relates to merchandise, described in the stipulation of submission as “seamless steel A. P. I. oil well casing, grades J-55 and N-80,” that was shipped from Antwerp, Belgium, and entered at Houston, Tex.

The agreed set of facts, upon which counsel for the respective parties submitted the case, establishes that export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for ap-praisement of the merchandise in question, and that such statutory value is “$150. per metric ton for all sizes .of grade J-55 casing and $182. per metric ton for all sizes of grade N-80 casing,” and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Cust. Ct. 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sipanam-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1957.