United States v. Hammel, Riglander & Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 37, 1928 CCPA LEXIS 31
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedApril 9, 1928
DocketNo. 3008
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 16 Ct. Cust. 37 (United States v. Hammel, Riglander & 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. Hammel, Riglander & Co., 16 Ct. Cust. 37, 1928 CCPA LEXIS 31 (ccpa 1928).

Opinion

Smith, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Watch crystals imported from France were reappraised at their invoice value, less a trade discount of 15 per centum and a discount for cash of 1 per centum. That decision was affirmed on appeal to the United States Customs Court. From the judgment of the United States Customs Court, affirming the reappraised value, an appeal was taken by the Government to this court.. In support of that appeal it is contended, first, that the discount of 15 per centum was allowed to three classes of wholesalers and that the amount of discount depended upon the quantity imported by the wholesaler for a period of one year; second, that a 15 per centum discount was given to purchasers who bought a yearly total of 2,000,000 watch crystals and that that discount was not given in the ordinary course of trade or for the usual wholesale quantity. The Government does not question the invoice prices or the importer’s right to deduct therefrom the discount for cash, but does contend that 15 per centum should not have been deducted from invoice prices to make appraised value.

At the hearing on reappraisement Moses M. Riglander testified on behalf of the importers that he had been an importer of watch crystals for 31 years; that the invoice price, less a discount of 1 per centum and 15 per centum, was the price paid for the imported merchandise and that said discounts are noted on the invoices; that from the year 1919 until November, 1921, the witness was alio wed discounts from list prices of 3 per centum, 15 per centum, and 20 per centum; that from November, 1921, to May, 1924, the discounts allowed were 3 per [39]*39centum, 10 per centum, and 15 per centum; that ever since May, 1924, the discounts allowed from the list prices of watch crystals were 1 per centum and 15 per centum; that ever since 1919 the witness has been given the discount of 15 per centum and that until February, 1925, his imported watch crystals were appraised at the port of New York with an allowance of 15 per centum discount; that the 15 per centum discount does not appear on the price list because it is a wholesale trade discount and because the price list is circulated among the retail trade; that the wholesale price of watch crystals is 15 per centum less than the retail price and the price to small consumers; that only wholesalers get the 15 per centum reduction from list prices; that in some instances wholesale quantity might mean 10,000 gross and in other instances only 100 gross; that only wholesalers get the 15 per centum discount, which is the regular trade discount to the United States, France, England, Germany, and other countries; that jobbers are sometimes wholesalers, but, whether jobbers are wholesalers or not, they do not get a lower price than wholesalers; that the dollar prices of the invoices converted into, francs were about 50 per centum higher than the French list prices.

Henry Lorsch, a witness on behalf of the importers, testified that his firm was an importer of watch crystals and watchmakers’ supplies and tools and had purchased watch crystals from the Verreries Unies for about 25 years; that from September, 1919, until some time in October, 1920, the discount allowed by the factory was 15, 20, and 3 per. centum; that from October, 1920, until May, 1924, the discount was 15 and 3 per centum, and that ever since May 1, 1924, the discount has been 15 and 1 per centum; thathis firm imported watch crystals from the factory in France every week or two and that the firm paid for such importations the list price thereof less the discount of 15 and 1 per centum; that until February or March, .1925, the discount of 15 per centum was always allowed by the appraisers, but that since February or March, 1925, they have refused to deduct from invoice prices the discount of 15 per centum; that watch crystals differ in price, size, and kind; that manufacturers send their price lists to wholesalers and do not send such lists to anyone'who may write for them; that the 15 per centum discount is a trade discount.

Alphonse V. Walter testified for the importers that he was a member of the firm of Albert Berger & Co., wholesale importers of watch crystals and optical goods; that his firm purchased watch crystals from the Verreries Unies and had been buying such watch crystals for 25 years; that since 1924 Albert Berger & Co. have been allowed a discount from list prices of 15 and 1 per centum; that prior to that year the firm was allowed 15 and 3 per centum; that in the year 1919 a discount of 20, 15, and 3 per centum went into effect; that that discount was changed to a discount of 15 and 3 per centum and subsequently to 15 and 1 per centum; that until March, 1925, imported watch crystals [40]*40were appraised correctly; that Hammel, Riglander & Co. were wholesale importers of watch crystals.

The affidavit of Alfred Sifertt, claim agent and director of the Verreries Unies, was admitted in evidence and from that affidavit it appears that the Verreries Unies sold 2,412,000 watch crystals in the year 1924 to three classes of trade in France, namely, first, individuals and concerns maintaining a permanent establishment with a stock on hand for the resale of watch crystals; second, to commissionaires for consumers; .and third, to dealers who sold direct to consumers and not for resale; that to the first class 2,004,770 watch crystals were sold at list price less a discount of 15 and 1 per centum; that to the second class only 23,230 watch crystals were sold at list price less a discount of 1 per centum for cash and 5 per centum buying commission; that to the third class 384,000 watch crystals were sold at the list price less a discount of 1 per centum for cash; that 90 per centum of the entire sales in France during the year 1924 were made by the Verreries Unies with a discount of 15 and 1 per centum from list prices and that those methods of selling, prices, and discounts prevailed in the year 1925.

On behalf of the Government the unsworn report of the customs representative in Paris, dated November 5, 1924, was introduced in evidence, from which it appears that Simon Schulz, manager of the Verreries Unies, stated to the customs representative on October 1, 1924, that the Verreries Unies sold, in 1922, 6,000,000 francs worth of watch crystals, of which amount 1,300,000 francs represented the purchases of two firms in France, 2,170,000 francs the value of purchases made in the United States, 900,000 francs the value of purchases in England, and 1,630,000 francs the amount purchased by all other countries; that the Verreries Unies sold in France to F. Moynet and J. Moulle and to no other jobbers; that both firms were allowed a discount of 15 and 1 per centum; that other jobbers and very small dealers buy from Moynet and Moulle and that such small jobbers get no discount; that in other countries than France the small dealers get 10 per centum discount on an annual amount of 500,-000 francs; that a few watch crystal factories in France sell cheaper than the Verreries Unies; that jobbers in countries other than France who buy to resell get a discount of 15 per centum because it is known that they buy more than 500,000 francs worth of crystals per year and, therefore, they are allowed the discount of 15 per centum; that the 10fer centum discount is allowed at the end, of the year

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

Related

Allen Forwarding Co. v. United States
57 Cust. Ct. 675 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)
United States v. Blake-Moffitt & Towne, Inc.
30 Cust. Ct. 634 (U.S. Customs Court, 1953)
Adolph Goldmark & Sons Corp. v. United States
22 C.C.P.A. 358 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1934)
United States v. A. W. Faber, Inc.
21 C.C.P.A. 290 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Ct. Cust. 37, 1928 CCPA LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hammel-riglander-co-ccpa-1928.