United States v. American Shipping Co.

6 Cust. Ct. 1011, 1941 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1314
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJune 3, 1941
DocketNo. 5299; Entry No. 7293
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 Cust. Ct. 1011 (United States v. American Shipping Co.) 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
United States v. American Shipping Co., 6 Cust. Ct. 1011, 1941 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1314 (cusc 1941).

Opinions

WalKer, Judge:

This is an appeal from tbe decision of Evans, J., sitting in reappraisement. Tbe merchandise consists of grids for X-ray apparatus in four sizes which are referred to throughout the record by their inch and centimeter measurements as follows:

8 x 10 inches=20.5 x 25,5 centimeters
10 x 12 inches=25.5 x 30.5 centimeters
12% x 13% inches=32 x 34 centimeters
14 x 17 inehes=35.5 x 43 centimeters

The merchandise was apparently shipped from Stockholm, Sweden, on December 7, 1937, and was entered on January 3, 1938, at the port of Chicago. The importer claims that the basis of value of three of the sizes, namely, 8 x 10, 12% x 13%, and 14 x 17 inches, should be the foreign value as defined in section -402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that the basis of value of the 10 x 12-inch grids should be the cost of production as defined in section 402 (f) of the same act. The defendant contends that the foreign value was the proper basis of value of all of the merchandise, and that the value in each case was higher than the value claimed by the importer.

[1012]*1012Tbe statutes cited, which'have been changed in part by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, at the time of importation of the merchandise read as follows:

SEC. 402. VALUE.
# * * * * * ' *
(c) Foreign Value. — The foreign value of imported merchandise shall be the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandis'e is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in ,the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of .whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.
*******

(f) Cost op Production.- — -For the purpose of this title the cost of production of imported merchandise shall be the sum of—

(1) The cost of materials of, and of fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or similar merchandise, at a time preceding the date of exportation of the particular merchandise under consideration which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production of the particular merchandise under consideration in the usual course of business;
(2) The usual general expenses (not less than 10 per centum of such cost) in the case of such or similar merchandise;
(3) The cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses. incident tp placing the particular merchandise under consideration in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States; and
(4) An addition for profit (not less than 8 per centum of the sum of the amounts found under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subdivision) equal to the profit whidh ordinarily is added, in the case of merchandise of the same general character as the particular merchandise under consideration, by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture or production who are engaged in production or manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind.

The court below found and held that foreign value was the proper basis of value for the following grids and that such value was as indicated:

8 x 10 inch Skr. 100
1-2% x 13% “ “ 150
14 x 17 “ “ 180

and that cost of production was the proper basis of value for the 10 x 12-inch size and that such cost was 135 Skr.

It therefore appears that as to the first three sizes listed immediately above there is no dispute that foreign value is the proper basis of appraisement, but the Government contends that the values found by the appraiser are correct. These values are as follows:

8 x 10 inch Skr. 165
12% x 13% inch ‘r 225
14 x 17 inch “ 275

[1013]*1013On behalf of the importer there were offered before the trial court the testimony of one Lester L. Ludwigsen, assistant merchandise manager in charge of supplies and sales of supplies of the General Electric X-Ray Corporation of Chicago, the ultimate consignee; an affidavit of Georg Schonander of Stockholm, Sweden, the manufacturer, which was received in evidence over the objection of defendant as exhibit 1; a sample of the merchandise in suit (exhibit 2); price lists of the ultimate consignee dated November 1, 1937, and September 8, 1939 (exhibit 3); copies of an agreement made between the ultimate consignee and the manufacturer (exhibits 4 and 5); a catalog and price list of a customer of the ultimate consignee (exhibit 6); and certain invoices of goods shipped from the manufacturer to the ultimate consignee (collective exhibit 8). On behalf of the defendant there was offered a report of a Treasury attaché dated April 14, 1938, concerning an investigation made at the place of business of the manufacturer, which was received in evidence as exhibit 7.

Appellant specifically assigns as error the action of the trial court in admitting exhibit 1 over Government’s objection and in giving any weight or consideration thereto. Exhibit 1 purports to be the affidavit of Georg Schonander, sworn to and subscribed before the American Vice Consul at Stockholm. It is in proper form, and of it the trial court said:

* * * Exhibit 1, the affidavit, is made by an interested party, a foreigner, although the affidavit is made in the English language with no showing that the affiant understood or could read or write the English language. Nevertheless, since the record shows that the affiant had visited this country, and made an agreement in this country in the English language, the court will indulge the presumption that he did understand the facts to which he made affidavit * * *.

We are satisfied tbe trial court committed no error in admitting and considering the affidavit in view of the situation outlined.

Error is likewise assigned to the action of the trial court in refusing to dismiss the importer’s appeal for reappraisement' upon the Government’s motion made on the ground that importer had failed to make out a prima facie case. A review of the evidence offered on behalf •of the importer shows that save as to the 14-x 17-inch size, it was .sufficient, standing alone, to meet every material issue and warrant a finding in importer’s favor, and we therefore find no error in the trial court’s denial of Government’s motion.

With respect to the three sizes of grids as to which both parties contend for foreign value, the chief point of difference appears to be the type of sale to be taken as the basis for the values contended for. It appears from a reading of the affidavit, exhibit 1, and the Treasury attaché’s report, exhibit 7, that sales in Sweden for home consumption or for exportation to countries other than the United States were made to two classes of buyers, viz, to ultimate consumers,

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

Related

Magnesium Elektron, Inc. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 762 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Cust. Ct. 1011, 1941 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-american-shipping-co-cusc-1941.