General
E. Leitz, Inc. v. United States
39 Cust. Ct. 533·United States Customs Court·1957
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
(V. D. 57)
Entry Nos. 777252; 962546; 804924.
E. Leitz, Inc. v. United States
(Decided December 11, 1957)
Eugene B. Pickrell for the plaintiff.
■George Cochran Doub, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.
[MAJORITY — Wilson, Judge:]
Wilson, Judge:
This matter is presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in E. Leitz, Inc. v. United States, 36 Cust. Ct. 391, Abstract 59812. The judgment entered therein stated: “ * * * that the matters be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”
The matter has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.
Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values were as follows:
Merchandise United States dollars per each
12 Polarizing Microscopes MOP, without front Collector and POEMP diaphragm and other parts_ $454. 44
12 wooden containers to fit_ 22. 96
5 Greenough Microscopes YEEUW_ 160. 04
5 wooden containers to fit_ 14. 40 less 25 per centum discount for each item
I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.
Insofar as the matter relates to all other merchandise, it is hereby dismissed.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.