Tower v. United States

44 Cust. Ct. 532
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJanuary 11, 1960
DocketReap. Dec. 9579; Entry No. 3445, etc.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 44 Cust. Ct. 532 (Tower 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
Tower v. United States, 44 Cust. Ct. 532 (cusc 1960).

Opinion

Mollison, Judge:

These cases are before me on rehearing, granted upon timely motion -made by counsel for the plaintiff after decision was rendered by me, which is reported in C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States, 40 Cust. Ct. 719, Reap. Dec. 9092.

In the above-cited decision, I concluded that the proper basis of value for the involved rubber-tipped bobby pins was cost of production, as defined in section 402(f), Tariff Act of 1930, and that the cost of production for the various items involved, i.e., Nos. 18, 24, 54, and 72, included a lump-sum figure in each instance for certain expenses denominated “selling expenses,” although it appeared that certain of the individual expenses included in the lump-sum figures were not properly part of the statutory cost of production. I incorporate by reference my opinion in the cited report as though herein fully set out.

Although the rehearing granted was not limited to the production of further evidence with respect to the disputed items of selling expenses, when the cases were called for trial, plaintiff offered evidence only as to the nature and amount of the disputed items of selling expense, and no evidence was offered on behalf of the defendant.

As the case comes before me now, it appears that plaintiff maintains its original position that the evidence shows that none of the disputed [534]*534items is properly includable in the statutory cost of production of tbe involved merchandise, although it asserts that it has established the breakdown of the lump-sum figure in the event that it should be determined that one or some of the items are properly so includable. Defendant also maintains its original position that the proper basis of value for the merchandise is export value, defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such value is the appraised value in each case. In the alternative, defendant asserts that the record evidence is insufficient upon which a finding of the statutory cost of production of the involved merchandise can be made.

Inasmuch as no new evidence was offered with inspect to the basis of value applicable to the merchandise at bar, I adhere to the views taken by me upon the original decision on that point, and will restate the findings and conclusion thereon at the end of this opinion.

The first question which I find to be posed by the record as now constituted is, which, if any, of the items of selling expenses in dispute between the parties is properly includable in cost of production? The disputed items are: Freight and shipping, advertising, traveling expenses, and commissions.

It is clear that the item of freight and shipping covered the cost of bringing the involved merchandise from the place in Toronto, Ontario, where it was manufactured, to the place in the United States, where it was delivered to the purchaser, including expenses of customs clearance but not duty charges. In my original opinion, reported in Reap. Dec. 9092,I cited the case of R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. v. United States, 26 Cust. Ct. 578, Reap. Dec. 7973, as authority for holding that costs for freight and shipping in countries other than the country of manufacture or production are not contemplated by the cost of production formula in section 402 (f), supra.

In that case, it was said inter alia:

Bach of the bases of value set forth in section 402, i.e., foreign value, export value, United States value, and American selling price, 6ut not including cost of production, is tied to such value in the “principal market” or the “principal markets,” as the case may be, of either the country of exportation or of the United States. The cost of production formula, however, is silent as to the place at which the value represented thereby is to be determined, but it can hardly be doubted that its purpose is to ascertain a value for merchandise in the country of manufacture or production, and this must particularly be true when, as here, the country of manufacture or production is also the country of exportation. This being so, the charge for freight from the country of exportation, Czechoslovakia, to another country is not properly a part of the cost of production under the statutory formula.

Counsel for the defendant has not sought to discuss or distinguish the Saunders case, supra, but instead has cited the case of United States v. Paul A. Straub Co., Inc., 41 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 209, C.A.D. 553, as holding that—

[535]*535* * * when sales are made F.O.B. point of destination at a certain price, and such price includes charges np to that point, the said charges become an integral part of the unit value.

I am of the opinion that counsel has unwittingly extended the holding of the Straub case beyond the point intended by the learned court which rendered the opinion in that case. The court, in the Straub case, merely held that where merchandise is offered and sold only on an f.o.b. port of exportation in the country of exportation basis, the f.o.b. charges are part of the statutory foreign or export value of the merchandise. It did not hold that that rule obtained when delivery took place outside of the country of exportation, and, indeed, in its opinion in the Straub case, our appellate court cited and quoted with approval a decision of a judge of this court sitting in reappraisement, to wit, the decision in the case of John A. Steer & Co. v. United States, 30 Cust. Ct. 504, Reap. Dec. 8196, holding that, notwithstanding certain merchandise was always offered and sold in Finland on a c.i.f. American port basis, no freight or shipping costs after delivery to the port of exportation in Finland were properly part of the value upon which duty was to be taken.

Counsel for the defendant further cites the decision of our appellate court in the case of United States v. Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc., 32 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 187, C.A.D. 305, at page 189, as authority for including “costs of delivery” in the cost of production. In my view, the costs of delivery therein referred to are the costs of delivery in the country of manufacture, production, or exportation, and not the costs of delivery in the United States.

I am consequently of the opinion that the item of freight and shipping in this case, being the costs for such expenses after manufacture or production in Toronto, Canada, are not properly part of the statutory cost of production.

The item of expense for advertising is shown to relate to advertising, paid for by the manufacturer, but directed toward the ultimate consumer purchasers in the United States — in other words, advertising directed toward the manufacturer’s purchaser’s customers. Again, the Dunhill case, supra, is cited by counsel for the defendant as requiring the inclusion in the “usual general expenses” element of statutory cost of production of “all * * * advertising.” I can only reiterate my view, stated in my original opinion, in Reap. Dec. 9092, that it would seem that the advertising referred to in the Dunhill case is that advertising, paid for by the manufacturer, designed to effect sales by the manufacturer to his primary customers.

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

Related

Castelazo & Associates v. United States
55 Cust. Ct. 708 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)
Tapetes Luxor, S.A. v. United States
53 Cust. Ct. 504 (U.S. Customs Court, 1964)
United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons
48 Cust. Ct. 683 (U.S. Customs Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 Cust. Ct. 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tower-v-united-states-cusc-1960.