General
May Co. v. United States
18 Cust. Ct. 377·United States Customs Court·1947
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
May Co. v. United States
No. 6855.
Entry No. 390, etc.
Invoices dated London, England, December 12, 1941, etc.
Certified December 13, 1941, etc.
Entered at Cleveland, Ohio, January 20, 1942, etc.
(Decided February 11, 1947)
Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins of counsel) for the plaintiff.
Paul P. Rao, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.
[MAJORITY — Oliver, Presiding Judge:]
Oliver, Presiding Judge:
These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:
(Stipulation omitted.)
On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and ehinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.
• Judgment will be rendered accordingly.