United States v. Merck & Co.

91 F. 641, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2918
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedJanuary 21, 1899
DocketNos. 1,973 and 1,979
StatusPublished

This text of 91 F. 641 (United States v. Merck & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Merck & Co., 91 F. 641, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2918 (circtsdny 1899).

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

Section 7 of the administrative act (26 Stat. 134) provided that the importer may “make such addition in the entry "to the cost or value given in the invoice, or pro forma invoice, or statement in form of an invoice, which he shall produce with Ms entry as, in his opinion, may raise the same to the actual market value”; that all additional duties, penalties, or forfeitures applicable to merchandise entered by a duly-certined invoice shall be alike applicable to goods entered by a pro forma invoice, or statement in form of an invoice, and that the duty should not “be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value.” These importers made such an addition upon the invoice produced- with the entry, which was disregarded, and a penal duty assessed that would not have accrued if it had been regarded. The board sustained the protest. The invoice seems to be the foundation of information of value; and this does not seem to be confined to the original consular invoice, for the provisions extend to pro forma invoices and statements. This statement of addition was upon the invoice when it was produced with the entry, and so was a part of the invoice value, to which, by the statute, all additional duties, penalties, or forfeitures were alike applicable, and below which, as distinguished from entered value, the collector could not go. It was to be regarded upward as well as downward, in liquidating the entry, and was an addition to make market value “in the entry” as a whole, alihough not written into the paper technically called the “entry.” Decision in 1,973 affirmed, in 1,979 reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 F. 641, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-merck-co-circtsdny-1899.