United States v. Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc.

6 Cust. Ct. 832, 1941 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1176
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMarch 11, 1941
DocketNo. 5161; Entry No. 796148, etc.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 Cust. Ct. 832 (United States v. Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc.) 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. Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc., 6 Cust. Ct. 832, 1941 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1176 (cusc 1941).

Opinion

Keefe, Judge:

This application for review involved certain turned and unturned steel tubing composed of a special steel alloy with chromium, and comprises fifty-six appeals for reappraisement.

The merchandise was entered and appraised on the basis of the United States value. Upon deducting the charges the appraiser returned the value as follows:

Steel tubing, geschalt or turned $0.0722 per pound
“ “ not turned .0486 “ “
“ “ “ “ .0592 “
“ “ “ “ .0618 “
“ “ with thick walls .1115 “ “

This is the second time these reappraisements have come before this court for review. The single judge upon the evidence submitted held that the tubing was subject to a United States value; that such value for turned tubing was 8% cents per pound and the unturned [833]*833tubing 1){ cents per pound, with, charges deducted. See Reap. Dec. 4209. On appeal for review to this division of the court, the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the values found by the appraiser sustained as presumptively correct. See Reap. Dec. 4376. A rehearing was later granted and upon reconsideration it was held that the trial court erred in manner following: First, in failing properly to determine the United States value of the merchandise, and second, in admitting in evidence certain exhibits Nos. 22, 23, 24, and 25, over objection of Government counsel. For the foregoing reasons the decision of the trial court was reversed and the reappraisements were remanded for all purposes for a retrial of the issues. See Reap. Dec. 4523.

When the case came before the trial court upon remand counsel for the plaintiff in his opening statement stated that in view of the decision of the appellate court in the case of Stern Hat Co. v. United States, 26 C. C. P. A. 410, C. A. D. 48, the United States value of the merchandise involved herein could no longer be considered as the proper basis of determining the value of the merchandise for duty purposes and that consequently the cost of production became the proper basis of value. The record previously made in the former case was thereupon incorporated herein.

To establish that the cost of production was the proper basis of value and that there was no United States value, we summarize the testimony of plaintiff in support thereof. The evidence was to the effect that the sole agent in the United States who handies steel tubing from the German manufacturers took orders from his seven customers in the United States for steel tubing having certain specifications ; that none of the' customers had the same requirements as to the size of tubing or as to the composition of the special steel from which said tubing was made; that the manufacturer shipped all orders for tubing to the agent and it was then delivered by him from the dock to the customer; that the tubing was not kept on hand or in stock by the American agent, and because each' customer had different requirements as to the hardness of the material, the size, the length of the tubing, and the tolerance specifications, tubing specially manufactured for the requirements of one manufacturer could not be sent to another customer, and that therefore the agent may not dispose of the tubing in any manner other than to the customer who ordered it. It was further established that the plaintiff has never had orders for tubing from any two of his customers that had the same requirements, the merchandise for each customer being made specially by the manufacturer, and that it takes from 5 weeks to 3 months to fill an order. In obtaining orders for steel tubing, the agent does not use either catalogs or samples and no advertising matter offering steel tubing of any kind was sent out to the trade generally in the [834]*834United States; that there has never been any such or similar steel tubing previously imported offered for sale, packed ready for delivery, during the period covering the importations herein; that the manufacturer of the steel tubing in Germany does not freely offer for sale for export to countries other than the United States any steel tubing such as or similar to that imported herein. It further appears from the evidence that there are no standard steel tubings on the market and that there are variations in the chemical composition of the steel tubing for each specific customer; that steel contains carbon, manganese, silicon, phosphorus and sulphur and when alloyed therewith, chromium, but each customer purchases tubing of a different composition as well as varying inside and outside dimensions, but that the different compositions and dimensions of the tubing do not affect the price. In addition to the foregoing testimony the plaintiff offered in evidence three affidavits in support of the cost of production of the involved tubing. These affidavits disclose the cost of production for the merchandise in question as follows:

FiUlOA2VNMnYuGraMmtyodNDGYOO4Aqpxde3CBVjx7nBYOlnSq4XKWnVfMfgLklGvbmS3OR6vTxxQQPRlHsWHS0WAE4EXhOGPo7D008tVq0sUq61FXVZ4SiSMpqLpj4jkjlw8IcGeT

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

Related

Amerimex Corp. v. United States
80 Cust. Ct. 74 (U.S. Customs Court, 1978)
Kittleson v. United States
26 Cust. Ct. 525 (U.S. Customs Court, 1951)
Frank P. Dow Co. v. United States
22 Cust. Ct. 361 (U.S. Customs Court, 1949)
United States v. Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher
12 Cust. Ct. 478 (U.S. Customs Court, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Cust. Ct. 832, 1941 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hensel-bruckmann-lorbacher-inc-cusc-1941.