3. That the sum of $3,500 added by the United States appraiser forms no part of the purchase price or export value of the imported microscope. I conclude as matters of law: 1. That the export value of the microscope in question, as defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for appraisement herein. 2. That the correct export value of said merchandise, as defined by said section 402 (b), is the appraised value, less the sum of $3,500. Judgment will be entered accordingly. (Reap. Dec. 10769) ANDREW FISHER CYCLE CO., INC. v. UNITED STATES Bicycle tires, tubes, and rimbrands—Export value Reappraisements R60/15705 and R60/16269 Entered at New York, N.Y. Entry Nos. 978123-1/8; 706613–2. (Decided June 9, 1964) Brooks & Brooks for the plaintiff. John W. Douglas, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. LAWRENCE, Judge: The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule A, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain bicycle tires, tubes, and rimbands, imported from Holland and identified on the invoices accompanying the entries with the letter "A" and initials "JK" by Examiner Joseph Kaufman. The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed as follows: IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States were the invoiced unit prices as entered. Upon the agreed facts of record, the court finds and holds that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the items of bicycle tires, tubes, and rimbands in issue, marked and initialed on the invoices as aforesaid, and that said value is represented by the invoiced unit prices as entered. Judgment will issue accordingly. (Reap. Dec. 10770) ANDREW FISHER CYCLE CO., INC. v. UNITED STATES Bicycle tires and tubes-Export value Reappraisements R62/1024 and R62/1026 Entered at New Orleans, La. Entry Nos. 3779; 4971. (Decided June 9, 1964) Brooks & Brooks for the plaintiff. John W. Douglas, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. LAWRENCE, Judge: The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule A, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain bicycle tires and tubes, imported from Holland. The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed as follows: IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States were the invoiced unit prices as entered. Upon the agreed facts of record, the court finds and holds that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the bicycle tires and tubes in issue and that said value is represented by the invoiced unit prices as entered. Judgment will issue accordingly. (Reap. Dec. 10771) KURT ORBAN Co., INC. v. UNITED STATES Wire strand-Export value Reappraisements R62/1031 and R62/3749 Entered at New Orleans, La. Entry Nos. 263; 14108. (Decided June 9, 1964) Sharretts, Paley & Carter for the plaintiff. John W. Douglas, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. LAWRENCE, Judge: The above-enumerated appeals for a reappraisement present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain wire strand, imported from Japan. The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed as follows: That the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated above consist of wire strand exported from Japan during the period beginning April 5, 1960 and ending May 28, 1960; that wire strand is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; that on or immediately preceding the date of exportation of each shipment of wire strand covered by each of the appeals to reappraisement enumerated above, the prices at which wire strand, such as or similar to the wire strand described on the invoices covered by the instant appeals to reappraisement were freely sold, or in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal market of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $254. per metric ton for wire strand of % inch diameter and $252. per metric ton for wire strand of 16 inch diameter (United States funds). Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the wire strand in issue and that said value is $254 per metric ton for wire strand of 3-inch diameter and $252 per metric ton for wire strand of 16-inch diameter (United States funds). Judgment will be entered accordingly. (Reap. Dec. 10772) BERBEN CORPORATION ET AL. v. UNITED STATES Pistols and parts thereof-Cost of production Reappraisement 280532-A and 24 others Entered at New York, N.Y. Entry No. 25049, etc. (Decided June 10, 1964) Barnes, Richardson & Colburn for the plaintiffs. John W. Douglas, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. LAWRENCE, Judge: The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain pistols and parts thereof and fittings therefor. The parties hereto have submitted the appeals for decision on a stipulation of fact which reads as follows: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court: That the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule "A" hereto attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise described on the invoices as pistols, with or without other words of description, and parts thereof and fittings therefor, and exported by the firm of Pietro Beretta, Italy. That the issues are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in Berben Corporation v. United States, Reap. Dec. 10552, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein. That at the time of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Italy or for exportation to the United States, and was likewise not freely offered for sale in the United States. That at the time of exportation the cost of production of the merchandise involved herein, as defined in Sec. 402(f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the entered value. That the instant appeals are submitted for decision on the incorporated record and this stipulation. Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the pistols and parts thereof and fittings therefor in issue and that said value is represented by the entered value. As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed. (Reap. Dec. 10773) BERBEN CORP. v. UNITED STATES Pistols and parts thereof-Cost of production Entered at New York, N.Y. Entry No. 740360, etc. (Decided June 10, 1964) Barnes, Richardson & Colburn for the plaintiff. John W. Douglas, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. LAWRENCE, Judge: The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain pistols and parts thereof and fittings therefor. The parties hereto have submitted the appeals for decision on a stipulation of fact which reads as follows: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court: That the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule "A" hereto attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise described on the invoices as pistols, with or without other words of description, and parts thereof and fittings therefor, and exported by the firm of Pietro Beretta, Italy. That the issues are similar in all material respects to the issues in Berben Corporation v. United States, Reap. Dec. 10552, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein. That at the time of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Italy or for exportation to the United States, and was likewise not freely offered for sale in the United States. That at the time of exportation the cost of production of the merchandise involved herein, as defined in Sec. 402(f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the entered value. That the instant appeals are submitted for decision on the incorporated record and this stipulation. Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the pistols and parts thereof and fittings therefor in issue and that said value is represented by the entered value. As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed. Judgment will be entered accordingly. (Reap. Dec. 10774) BERBEN CORP. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES Pistols and parts thereof-Cost of production Reappraisement R59/16689 and 59 others Entered at New York, N.Y. Entry No. 884827, etc. (Decided June 10, 1964) Barnes, Richardson & Colburn for the plaintiffs. John W. Douglas, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. LAWRENCE, Judge: The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain pistols and parts thereof and fittings therefor. The parties hereto have submitted the appeals for decision on a stipulation of facts which reads as follows: That the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule "A" hereto attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise described on the invoices as pistols, with or without other words of description, and parts thereof and fittings therefor, and exported by the firm of Pietro Beretta, Italy. |