United States v. Balfour, Guthrie & Co.

39 C.C.P.A. 199
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMarch 18, 1952
DocketNo. 4698
StatusPublished

This text of 39 C.C.P.A. 199 (United States v. Balfour, Guthrie & Co.) 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
United States v. Balfour, Guthrie & Co., 39 C.C.P.A. 199 (ccpa 1952).

Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States Customs Court, Second Division, rendered pursuant to its decision, Abstract 55709, 27 Cust. Ct. 266, granting appellee’s petition for remission of additional duties assessed by the Collector of Customs at the port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for underevaluation, under the provisions of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U. S. C. § 1489, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

Sec. 489. Additional Duties:
If the final appraised value of any article of imported merchandise which is subject to an ad valorem rate of duty or to a duty based upon or regulated in any manner by the value thereof shall exceed the entered value, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in addition to the duties imposed by law on such merchandise, an additional duty of 1 per centum of the total final appraised value thereof for each 1 per centum that such final appraised value exceeds the value declared in the entry. * * * Such additional duties shall not be construed to be penal and shall not be remitted nor payment thereof in any way avoided, except in the case of a clerical error, upon the order of the Secretary of the Treasury, or in any case upon the finding of the United States Customs Court, upon a petition filed at any time after final appraisement and before the expiration of sixty days after liquidation and supported by satisfactory evidence under such rules as the court may prescribe, that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. * * *

The merchandise consists of boiled cottonseed soapstock imported from Argentina which was purchased in 1941 by appellee through Henry G. Perry, its assistant vice-president, who was in charge of the department that purchases all foreign oils and fats.

The merchandise is covered by two purchase contracts and the entry consists of two different invoices; one lot was purchased March 12, 1941, at $0.0190 per pound and the other lot was purchased on March 15, 1941, at $0.0195 per pound. The merchandise was shipped on April 29, 1941, and was entered at a unit price of $0.0195 per pound on June 5, 1941. On August 3,1948, it was advanced in value by the appraiser, thus causing an assessment thereon of an increase of $105.15 in regular duty and $936.50 in additional duties. The' petition is for the refund of the additional duties.

The testimony discloses that appellee instructed J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co., appellee’s custom-house brokers, to enter the merchandise. It was stipulated that at the time of the entry in question Mr. Howard Wilson and Mr. Hafer were partners in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co.; that both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Hafer took part in making the entry and that Mr. Hafer signed the entry; that Mr. Wilson has since died [201]*201and that Mr. Hafer was ill and could not appear to testify. It was further stipulated that if Mr. Wilson or Mr. Hafer were present, he would testify in substance that- they made the entry on the basis of the price stated in the consular invoice in the absence of any other information from appellee.

It was also agreed that they would testify that neither of them knew of any higher value and that both would testify that they did not withhold any information from the appraiser; that they did not intend to deceive the appraiser as to value; and that they did not intend to defraud the revenue of the United States or to misrepresent the facts in the case.

Mr. Perry testified that he was in charge of purchases and that he contracted for the purchase of the involved merchandise; that it was the practice in his department, as soon as a purchase was made in a foreign country, for a series of five forms to be prepared which would give the complete details of each purchase; that copies of these forms were distributed to the traffic department, the invoice department, and the control department, so that the transaction could be followed through by the three departments so as to avoid errors; that the forms would also serve as a source of information to the import department so that from the time the purchase was made until the merchandise arrived in the United States fluctuations in value could be noted; that this served the purpose of keeping the import department up-to-date on prices; that the import department would come to him and ask him for the value of these various goods, particularly the goods that were assessed on an ad valorem rate of duty, so from the time a purchase was made until the merchandise arrived they would know whether there was a fluctuation up or down in values. Mr. Perry also testified that in 1941 he had information as to the prices of the imported merchandise “because I was buying this particular line of goods directly. I call Buenos Aires quite often by telephone and I was also buying some, rather from American producers in the Argentine through their New York office, so that there was always a double check on the value”; that he had quotations every other day or twice a week; that there was a rise in the market in the first half of 1941; that “To the best of my recollection, the last purchase I made in 1941 was about 1.9fi per pound or $1.90 per one hundred pounds and within the first half of that year, I think I paid up to 3or $3.25 per one hundred pounds”; that he passed along what information he had to Mr. Crosby, who was traffic manager.

Mr. Perry further stated that, in addition to himself, his assistant Mr. Mulcahy and the traffic department had information regarding the prices or value of the imported merchandise, that the merchandise was paid for before it arrived and that it was entered on the consular invoice value, which reflected the price paid for it. According to Mr. [202]*202Perry, the information he, Mr. Mulcahy, the traffic department and the import department had relative to the value of the merchandise in Buenos Aires at the time the merchandise was shipped and at the time -the entry was made was not supplied to the customs officials because "“There was no request for it.”

Mr. Perry further testified as follows:

Q. Did you discuss with. Mr. Crosby the prices at which these should be entered?
A. To the best of my knowledge they asked me what I considered to be the -value and I said around the same value that we had purchased it for and I said -“Let the entry go in and if the Examiner says no, I said, let’s do it the right way.”

Mr. Crosby testified that in March, April, May and June of 1941 he had charge of a portion of the Import Traffic Department and that his work included the merchandise here involved. It appears from the record that Mr. Hafer made the entry upon instructions issued by Mr. Crosby’s office which had on file contracts covering all purchases .-made by Mr. Perry, including the involved merchandise. Mr. Crosby testified that he was unable to find that he personally transmitted the ■documents to J. W. Hampton, Jr.

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

Related

Finsilver v. United States
13 Ct. Cust. 332 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1925)
Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. United States
27 Cust. Ct. 266 (U.S. Customs Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 C.C.P.A. 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-balfour-guthrie-co-ccpa-1952.