Stirn v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 17, 1920 WL 19886, 1920 CCPA LEXIS 1
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedFebruary 2, 1920
DocketNo. 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 10 Ct. Cust. 17 (Stirn 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
Stirn v. United States, 10 Ct. Cust. 17, 1920 WL 19886, 1920 CCPA LEXIS 1 (ccpa 1920).

Opinion

Smith, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Dyed thrown silk and dyed spun silk yarns, imported for J. B. Martin & Co., Norwich, Conn., from Lyons, France, for the manufacture of velvets, and entered by the clearance agents of that concern, were appraised by the local 'appraiser at the invoice value, plus 8 per cent added for manufacturer’s profit.

On appeal to reappraisement the appraised value as fixed by the local appraiser was sustained. On final appeal to the board of three general appraisers there was'added to the invoice value of all thrown silk yarns not only 8 per cent for manufacturer’s profit, but 10 per cent for general expenses, and the collector of customs imposed duty on the goods at that valuation. No appeal seems to have been taken [18]*18from the reappraisement of the general appraiser adding 8 per cent to the invoice value of the spun silks.

The importer protested that the addition of 8 per cent and 10 per cent was- illegal, and in effect that the local appraiser, the general appraiser, and the board of three general appraisers, acting as appraisers, proceeded upon á wrong principle in making any additions.

It appears from the record, and is found by the appraisers, that there was no market for dyed silk yarns in France, the country of exportation. Manufacturers of silk fabrics in France and the United States purchase silk in the gray and have the silks thrown and dyed to order according to the special requirements of their particular manufacture.

J. B. Martin & Co., of Norwich, purchased in the United States silk in the gray and shipped it to J. B. Martin & Co., of Lyons, France, with directions to have all of the silk dyed and some of it thrown; that is to say, twisted to the number of turns to the inch required — the thrown silk to be wound on beams. In accordance with these directions J. B. Martin & Co., of Lyons, sent some of the silk to a throwster,” who twisted the silk to the number of turns ordered and thereby produced an organzine or thrown silk yarn for which he charged,in 1916,4 francs, and in 1917,4.60 francs per kilogram, made up of the following items:

Dwing the year 1916.
Francs.
1. Transportation, packing, conditioning.0. 20
2. Soaping.05
3. Power, rent, lighting, heating, taxes, insurance.54
4. Waste.25
5. Wages and overhead charges. 2. 06
6. Supplies and upkeep.08
7. General expenses.40
8. Profit.42
Total 4.00
During the year 1917.
Francs.
1. Transportation, packing, conditioning. 0. 26
2. Soaping.08
3. Power, rent, lighting, heating, taxes, insurance.:.61
4. Waste.25
5. Wages and overhead charges. 2.15
6. Supplies and upkeep.16
7. General expenses.47
8. Profit.52
Total. 4. 50

All of the silks whether thrown or not were sent to a dyer who dyed them to the color and shade required by J. B. Martin & Co., of Norwich, and thereby produced a dyed silk yarn for which the dyer in 1916 charged 18.53 francs per kilogram, and in 1917, 20.65 [19]*19francs per kilogram. The items making up the charge for dyeing, for the years 1916 and 1917 were as follows:

For the year 1916.
Francs’.
1. Transportation expenses. . 0. 73
2. Wages for help. Pr. 3. 00
Overhead expenses. .98
- 3.98
3. Raw material (chemical products) . 8.90
4. Power, lighting, and heating. .84
5. General expenses. . 2.32
6. ■ Profit. . 1.76
Total 18. 53
For the year 1917.
Francs.
1. Transportation, expenses. . 0.79*
2. Wages for help — .. Fr. 3. 25
Overhead expenses. .99
-4.24
3. Raw materials (chemical products) . 10.15
4. Power, lighting, and heating. . 1.14
5. General expenses. . 2.47
6. Profit. . 1.86
Total. 20. 65

The thrown silks after dyeing were warped and wound on beams by J. B. Martin & Co., of Lyons, for which service a total charge of 9.50 francs per kilogram was made prior to December 1, 1916, 9.73 francs for the month of December, 1916, and 9.95 francs after the first of January, 1917. The charge for warping and winding prior to December 1, 1916, during December, 1916, and during the year 1917, was made up of the following items:

Prior to December 1, 1916.
Francs.
1. Transportation and freight charges.1 0. 20
2. Wages and overhead charges. 5. 57
3. Power, lighting, and heating.50
4. General expenses. 1. 50
5. Profit..'.:. 1.73
Total. 9. 50
During December, 1916.
Francs.
1. Transportation and freight charges. 0. 20
2. Wages and overhead charges. 5. 98
3. Power, lighting, and heating...50
4. General expenses. 1. 75
5. Profit. 1. 20
Total. 9.73
[20]*20 During the year 1917.
Francs.
1. Transportation and freight charges. 0. 20
2. Wages and overhead charges... 6. 39
3. Power, lighting, and heating.50
4. General expenses. 1. 50
5. Profit. 1. 36
Total.:.'.. 9.95

To produce the silk yarns imported for J. B. Martin & Co., of Norwich, and to bring them to the condition which they had when imported, they were subjected to no process of manufacture of any kind, so far as the evidence discloses, other than the throwing, dyeing, warping, and winding of some of them and the dyeing of all of them.

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

Related

United States v. Control Data Corp.
69 Cust. Ct. 274 (U.S. Customs Court, 1972)
National Carloading Corp. v. United States
63 Cust. Ct. 594 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
United States v. Fashion Ribbon Co.
62 Cust. Ct. 1015 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
United States v. F. B. Vandegrift & Co.
16 Ct. Cust. 398 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1928)
Hampton v. United States
14 Ct. Cust. 350 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1927)
Stirn v. United States
12 Ct. Cust. 42 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Ct. Cust. 17, 1920 WL 19886, 1920 CCPA LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stirn-v-united-states-ccpa-1920.