General

United States v. Geo. Wm. Rueff & Co., Inc., a/c J. T. Lloyd Co.

27 Cust. Ct. 454·United States Customs Court·1951

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

United States v. Geo. Wm. Rueff & Co., Inc., a/c J. T. Lloyd Co. No. 8052. Entered at New Orleans, La. Entry No. 2973. (Decided September 19, 1951) David N. Edelstein, Assistant Attorney General (Joseph E. Weil, special attorney) , for the plaintiff. Tompkins & Tompkins (Allerton deC. Tompkins of counsel) for the defendant. [MAJORITY — Eewall, Judge:] Eewall, Judge: This is a collector’s appeal for ■ reappraisement and relates to the dutiable value of certain fishhooks. At the hearing it was stipulated that as, to the item 2627 R described as “40400 only Aberdeen Hks. Ringed Blue 2/0” the proper value is 9. shillings and 6 pence’ and that the work sheet was in error in showing a value of 6 pence. It was further agreed that said 9 shillings, 6 pence represents the proper export value and that the foreign value is no higher. On the agreed facts I find that the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise in dispute and that such value is 9 shillings, 6 pence per M. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.