for profit and general expenses. Plaintiffs have decisively proven that the appraised values were improperly computed and further have fully supported their claimed values.

For the reasons expressed heretofore, I make the following findings of fact:

1. The merchandise involved herein consists of benzenoid dyes, exported from Switzerland in 1965, and entered at the port of New York. 2. At the time of exportation there were no similar competitive dyes manufactured or produced in the United States.

3. These dyes do not appear on the Final List.

4. These importations were appraised on the basis of United States value pursuant to section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as follows:

5. The only element of the appraisement in issue is the allowance for profit and general expenses. The parties agreed that if such allowance is found to be other than that made in appraisement, the deduction for duty must also be adjusted.

6. At the time of exportation, and for a reasonable period prior thereto, all importations into the United States of Swiss dyes of the class or kind of the importations in this case were made by four companies, the three plaintiffs herein, and Carbic Color Division of American Hoechst Corp.

7. Carbic purchased its dyes from Durand & Huguenin, S.A., a Swiss corporation to which it was not related. The three plaintiffs herein, each a wholly-owned subsidiary of a Swiss manufacturer of similar name, purchased only from their respective parent companies.

8. All sales of dyes of the class or kind of the imports here in suit made by the plaintiffs herein were made to unrelated purchasers.

9. The profits and general expenses of the plaintiffs, respectively, for the year 1964, which the parties have stipulated and which I find to be a reasonable period preceding the instant importations, as calculated by an accounting method which I can find to be reasonable,

accurate, consistent with good accounting practice and in accord with law, were the following percentages of their respective net selling prices in the United States in the sale of merchandise of such class or kind:

10. The profit and general expenses of Carbic for this period for merchandise of such class or kind was stipulated to have been:

The appraiser applied this total, 19.1% in the appraisement of the instant importation.

11. The sales of dyes of such class or kind in 1964 by the four importers were, respectively, the following percentages of the total of such sales in dollar terms:

12. The appraiser disregarded the profit and general expenses of the plaintiffs solely because they were related to their Swiss suppliers. 13. The Swiss manufacturers who exported to the plaintiffs and Carbic realized profits on their sales of such dyes to the United States in 1964, in the following percentages of their sales prices:

In light of the above I reach the following conclusions of law: 1. United States value, section 402 (c), is the proper basis for appraisement.

2. The appraiser may not apply section 402(g) to disregard the usual profit and general expenses merely because importer and exporter are related companies. In these cases, he had no other basis for disregarding the usual profit and general expenses.

3. The usual profit and general expenses in the sale of merchandise

of the class or kind of the imports herein were those of Geigy, which sold the largest volume of such merchandise in the relevant period. 4. The proper computations for arriving at the value of the involved merchandise are as follows:

DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES

CUSTOMS COURT

Reviews

(A.R.D. 311)

SERVICE AFLOAT, INC.

HOWARD HARTRY, INC. UNITED STATES

Yachts and pleasure boats

SELECTED PURCHASER-AGENCY

An export value under section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, was not established by appellants pursuant to section 402(f) (1) (B) where the record showed that the alleged "selected purchaser" (Robert Newton & Sons, Inc.) was not a bona fide purchaser, but rather was the selling agent of the exporter (American Marine, Ltd.).

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF REAPPRAISEMENT DECISION 11761

Reappraisement R68/2791

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif.

Entry No. 275458.

Second Division, Appellate Term

[Affirmed.]

(Decided January 12, 1973)

Glad & Tuttle (Edward N. Glad of counsel) for the appellants. Harlington Wood, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Frederick L. Ikenson, trial attorney), for the appellee.

Before RAO, FORD, and NEWMAN, Judges

NEWMAN, Judge: Appellants (plaintiffs below) have filed an application for review of the decision and judgment of Maletz, J. in Service Afloat, Inc., Howard Hartry, Inc. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 225, R.D. 11761, 337 F. Supp. 458, reh. den. (1972). The imported merchandise is a pleasure boat, invoiced as a "Grand Banks 36′ Twin