Ziel & Co. v. United States

49 Cust. Ct. 454, 1962 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1263
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedNovember 21, 1962
DocketReap. Dec. 10374; Entry No. 8112
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 Cust. Ct. 454 (Ziel & Co. v. United States) 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
Ziel & Co. v. United States, 49 Cust. Ct. 454, 1962 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1263 (cusc 1962).

Opinion

Johnson, Judge:

The merchandise involved in the case consists of plywood, exported from Japan in November 1954. At the trial, the appeal for reappraisement was limited to the merchandise described on the invoice as rotary Sen plywood, % inch thick, 4 by 8 feet in size, first quality, type III urea resin glue, un jointed, or up to three joints, manufactured by Yuasa Trading Co., Ltd. Said merchandise was invoiced and appraised as follows:

Invoiced Appraised
(per 1,000sq. ft.) (per 1,000sq. ft.)
Sen plywood net, packed net, packed
unjointed $125. 00 f.o.b. $135. 00
up to three joints 118. 00 f.o.b. 128. 00

It was stipulated, at the trial, that there was no foreign value for such or similar merchandise, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative [455]*455Act of 1938. It was agreed that the proper basis of appraisement was the export value, as said value is defined in section 402(d) of said tariff act. Plaintiff claims, however, that said value should be $125 per 1,000 square feet for first quality, unjointed, and $118 per 1,000 square feet for first quality up to three joints, as invoiced.

Robert S. Reid, a trader with Ziel & Co., Inc., the importer herein, testified that he started the plywood department for that firm in 1950 and that his duties include buying and selling plywood and developing a market therefor. He purchased plywood from suppliers in Japan who were manufacturers, such as Yuasa Trading Co., Ltd., and from exporters and trading houses who were not manufacturers. By 1955, he was buying the greatest quantity of Lauan and Sen plywood from Yuasa because its product was fully satisfactory and the firm was dependable.

According to Mr. Reid, Yuasa was not bound by contract to furnish plywood manufactured by it, but it was unusual in 1954 for it to deliver plywood manufactured by someone else. This occurred only when Yuasa could not fill the requirements or was not especially adapted to make the particular type plywood desired. The witness said that when he first began importing, the invoices did not state the name of the manufacturer, but later on they did. As far as he knew, the instant shipment was manufactured by Yuasa.

The witness testified that his firm had no exclusive contract with Yuasa; that there was no agreement, written or oral, preventing it from purchasing from other sources or requiring it to purchase any particular quantity; and there was no agreement that Yuasa would sell plywood to no other firm in the Bay Area. There were occasions when orders to Yuasa were not accepted because the manufacturer did not have sufficient productive capacity.

Mr. Reid stated that his firm made a number of purchases from Yuasa in mid-1954 and that shipments were made from November through the early part of 1955.

A. E. Bryson, manager of import-export for the lumber and plywood department of Balfour Guthrie Co., Ltd., general importer and exporter, testified that his firm imports plywood and sells it throughout the United States. When he set up the plywood importing department in 1953, the company started doing business with three different firms in Japan, among them Yuasa Trading Co., Ltd. Some of the suppliers were general trading houses, but, to the knowledge of the witness, Yuasa was a manufacturer of plywood. He had visited its mill several times and said that it was located about 50 feet from its business office.

In the early part of 1954, according to the witness, Balfour Guthrie purchased Sen plywood of the type here involved from Yuasa. The price was lower than $125 per 1,000 square feet for the unjointed first [456]*456quality and was in the neighborhood of $120 or $122 per 1,000. The price for first quality up to three joints was about $7 or $8 less. Before July 1954, the firm had turned to type II glue, which cost about $5 to $7 more per 1,000.

The witness testified that, when his firm first began to import plywood, the crates were opened and inspected at the docks to check the quality. To his knowledge, plywood purchased from Yuasa was stamped with its brand, “TYC,” in a diamond.

According to Mr. Bryson, there was no agreement, written or oral, between Yuasa and Balfour Guthrie, giving the latter an exclusive territory in the United States; there was no agreement with Yuasa restricting Balfour Guthrie’s sales anywhere; and there was no agreement requiring it to buy a particular quantity from Yuasa. In fact, there were occasions when Yuasa was unable to accept orders from Balfour Guthrie. In 1955, or when the market dropped below the MITI check price, Balfour Guthrie ceased doing business with Yuasa.

There was received in evidence as plaintiff’s exhibit 2 an affidavit of Jiro Hatanaka, submanager of the Nagoya office of Yuasa Trading Co., Ltd. According to the affiant, Yuasa is a manufacturer of plywood and other wood products, with plywood and sawmills at Nagoya. The affiant has been with the firm for 25 years and has personal knowledge of the selling prices of the various items of plywood manufactured and sold for export to the United States. He stated that it has been the practice of the company to freely offer and sell to anyone who cared to buy for export to the United States, whether exporters located in Japan, or importers located in the United States. Although a sizable quantity was sold to a few regular customers in the United States, plywood was also sold at the same time to exporters in Japan and other importers in the United States, depending upon the quantity available and the orders received. Prices included packing, freight, and handling charges necessary to placing the goods on board vessels for transportation to the United States and did not vary because of quantity.

According to the affiant, in the last 6 months of 1954, rotary Sen plywood with type III urea resin glue, of the size 48 by 96 inches, in % inch thickness, was offered at $125 per 1,000 square feet for first quality unjointed and $118 per 1,000 square feet for first quality up to three joints. A list of sales at those prices covering merchandise shipped from November 1954 through May 1955 is included in the affidavit. It is stated therein that there was a time lag of 3 or 4 months between date of sale and date of shipment, so that shipments made in the first 4 months of 1955 were the result of sales made during the last 6 months of 1954.

[457]*457The affidavit states further that merchandise was offered and sold with the definite restriction that it would not be sold for home consumption in Japan but would be exported. It is also stated that prices to Japanese trading houses or exporters located in Japan were lower.

Defendant offered in evidence a report of Lester D. Johnson, appraiser of merchandise, dated March 25, 1955 (defendant’s collective exhibit A). Information obtained in an interview with Mr. J. Hatanaka, manager, foreign trade division, Yuasa Trading Co., Inc., is set forth as follows:

Yuasa Trading Company sells directly 95% of tlieir production to three importers in the United States, Ziel & Company of San Francisco, Cal., Balfour, Guthrie & Company, Ltd., Portland, Oregon, and the Wood-Mosaic Corporation of Louisville, Kentucky. The latter concern is their principal customer at the present time. Only five per cent of this firm’s production is sold through exporters.

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

Related

Picker Corp. v. United States
68 Cust. Ct. 276 (U.S. Customs Court, 1972)
United States v. Getz Bros.
55 C.C.P.A. 11 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)
Getz Bros. v. United States
55 Cust. Ct. 693 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Cust. Ct. 454, 1962 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ziel-co-v-united-states-cusc-1962.