Stone v. United States

21 C.C.P.A. 479, 1934 CCPA LEXIS 322
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedFebruary 12, 1934
DocketNo. 3611
StatusPublished

This text of 21 C.C.P.A. 479 (Stone 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
Stone v. United States, 21 C.C.P.A. 479, 1934 CCPA LEXIS 322 (ccpa 1934).

Opinion

Hatfield, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States Customs Court, Third Division, in Reappraisements 100491-A, 100518-A, 100519-A, 100520-A, 100521-A, 100522-A, and 100788-A.

The merchandise, consisting of greeting cards and calendars, imported under the Tariff Act of 1930, was entered at the port of Boston. In Reappraisement 100788-A, it was appraised by the appraiser at values higher than the entered values, and the importers appealed to reappraisement; whereas, in the other reappraisements, it was appraised at its entered values, and the collector appealed.

It is conceded by counsel for the parties that the merchandise has no export values.

The sole issue in the case is whether foreign values have been established, and, if so, whether they are the prices paid by certain wholesalers, and one large retailer operating chain stores, or whether they are the prices paid by the other customers of the manufacturer— 1,196 retailers.

On the trial before the trial court, Brown, Judge, presiding, the Government introduced in evidence Exhibit I, a report by a special agent of the Government.

It appears from the special agent’s report that he visited the office of the manufacturer, E. W. Savory, Ltd., Bristol, England, and made a personal inspection of the books of that concern, and also had some conversation with either Mr. E. W. Savory, chairman of the board of directors, or Mr. Mortimer Savory, joint managing director of that firm, he did not state which, relative to the issues here involved; that the importer, Dennison Manufacturing Co., Framingham, Mass., is the exclusive agent in the United States for the “standard line of cards and calendars sold by the manufacturer”, although a “special fine of high quality cards” has been produced and sold, exclusively, for several years to Cartier, Inc., of New York City; that merchandise identical in character to that here involved was sold in the country [482]*482of exportation at fixed prices, “less varying discounts, depending upon the status of the customer”; that the manufacturer did not issue printed price lists; that orders for the cards and calendars were taken by salesmen representing the manufacturer; that a “separate series of numbers is assigned each group of cards selling at the same price and these numbers denote to the traveler [the manufacturer’s salesmen] the selling price”; that the “first number of a series indicates the year in which the designs were offered ”; and that he had been told by “Mr. Savory” that no alteration would be made in the prices which had remained the same for several years. The witness then stated:

There is reproduced below a complete list of all series of standard lines of cards and calendars sold both in the home market and to Dennison, together with the manufacturer’s home-market price per gross or per dozen.
$ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

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

Related

Johnson Co. v. United States
13 Ct. Cust. 373 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1926)
United States v. Tadross & Co.
14 Ct. Cust. 10 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1926)
United States v. Vietor
16 Ct. Cust. 122 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1928)
Happel v. United States
16 Ct. Cust. 161 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 C.C.P.A. 479, 1934 CCPA LEXIS 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-united-states-ccpa-1934.