Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

(VI)

Top Company, Inc., The, C.D. 4456.
Tower, C. J., & Sons of Niagara, Inc., C.D. 4398.
Transamerican Electronics Corp. et al., C.D. 4405.-
Trans-Atlantic Company, C.D. 4459.--
United Geophysical Corp. and The Carrington Co., C.D. 4415---
Warshawsky & Company, C.D. 4410...-
Westinghouse Electric Corp., C.D. 4427..
Westinghouse Electric Corp. et al., C.D. 4426..
Wool Distributing Corp., C.D. 4457.---

Page 238

1 35 243 105

75 173 171 239

Reappraisements Casavant Freres, Ltd., C.D. 4402.

25 Ciba Chemical & Dye Co., Geigy Chemical Corporation and Sandoz, Inc., R.D. 11775---

259 Geigy Chemical Corporation and Sandoz, Inc., and Ciba Chemical & Dye Co., R.D. 11775..

259 Rachelle Laboratories, Inc., C.D. 4416.

114 Sandoz, Inc., and Ciba Chemical & Dye Co., Geigy Chemical Corporation, R.D. 11775..

259

312 286 275 301 295 275 279

Review Decisions
Ampex Professional Products Co., A.R.D. 316.---
Fenton, A. W., Co., Inc., The, A.R.D. 313...--
Hartry, Howard, Inc., and Service Afloat, Inc., A.R.D. 311...
Mitsui & Co., Ltd., A.R.D. 315-----
Saunders, R. J., & Co., Inc., A.R.D. 314.-
Service Afloat, Inc., and Howard Hartry, Inc., A.R.D. 311.
Tower, C. J., & Sons of Niagara, Inc., A.R.D. 312....

Rules Decisions
Adolco Trading Corp., C.R.D. 73–8.----
Applied Research Laboratories et al., C.R.D.'s 73-2, 73–7--
Bendix Mouldings, Inc., et al., C.R.D. 73-6----
Deringer, A. N., Inc., C.R.D. 73–4.
Grant, W. T., Co., C.R.D.'s 73–10, 73–14.---
Kahaner, Sol, & Bro., C.R.D. 73–5.--.
Mobilite, Inc., C.R.D. 73-11..
Shannon Luminous Material Company, C.R.D. 73-1...-.
Stahlwood Toy Mfg. Co., Inc., C.R.D. 73–13.-
Suwannee Steamship Company, C.R.D. 73-3.
Symphonic Electronics Corp., C.R.D. 73–12.
Verrazzano Trading Corp., C.R.D. 73-9..

346 321, 345

343

337 354, 372

341 359 319 368 327 367 347

CASES REPORTED IN FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT

Applied Research Laboratories et al. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 321, C.R.D.

73–2; 352 F. Supp. 498 Carr, John V., & Son, Inc. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 80, C.D. 4411; 358 F.

Supp. 280 Control Data Corporation, United States v. 69 Cust. Ct. 274, A.R.D. 310; 352

F. Supp. 1392 Dossett, Andrew, Imports, Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 334, C.R.D. 72-26 ;

351 F. Supp. 1404 Dravo Corporation and C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States, 69

Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 4379; 350 F. Supp. 604 Friedman, Morris, & Co. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 184, C.D. 4392; 351 F.

Supp. 611 Green Giant Co. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 20, C.D. 4401; 355 F. Supp. 1397 Harper, Robinson & Co. et al. and Rattancraft of California v. United States, 69

Cust. Ct. 262, A.R.D. 308; 351 F. Supp. 1401 Hartry, Howard, Inc., and Service Afloat, Inc. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 375,

A.R.D. 311; 353 F. Supp. 885 Intercontinental Fibres, Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 337, C.R.D. 72–27;

352 F. Supp. 952 McDermott, J. Ray, & Co., Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 197, C.D. 4394 ; 354

F. Supp. 280 Mobilite, Inc. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 359, C.R.D. 73–11; 358 F. Supp. 267 Rattancraft of California and Harper, Robinson & Co. et al. v. United States, 69

Cust. Ct. 262, A.R.D. 308; 351 F. Supp. 1401 Rhee, S. Y., Importers v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 177, C.D. 4391 ; 353 F. Supp.

880 Service Afloat, Inc., and Howard Hartry, Inc. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 375,

A.R.D. 311; 353 F. Supp. 885 Suwannee Steamship Company v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 327, C.R.D. 73–3;

354 F. Supp. 1361 Tower, C. J., & Sons of Buffalo, Inc., and Dravo Corporation v. United States, 69

Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 4379 ; 351 F. Supp. 604 Tower, C. J., & Sons of Niagara, Inc. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 279, A.R.D. 312;

354 F. Supp. 858 Transamerican Electronics Corp. et al. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 35, C.D.

4405; 354 F. Supp. 1369 Verranzzano Trading Corp. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 347, C.R.D. 73-9; 358 F. Supp. 273

(VII)

DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES

CUSTOMS COURT

Customs Decisions

(C.D. 4398)
C. J. TOWER & SONS OF NIAGARA, Inc. v. UNITED STATES

Chemical compounds
ORIGIN—COCONUT OIL

Plaintiff, seeking the exemption from a tax on the coconut oil content of importations allowed for coconut oil of Philippine origin, failed to show that the oil at issue originated in the Philippine

Islands.
EVIDENCE-ORIGIN OF MATERIAL

In order to prove the origin of a material, proof must be adduced of the chain of events which connects the material to the point of origin. The testimony of a witness based solely on knowledge of the purchasing side of the transaction in Canada is insufficient to prove the origin of the material purchased.

United States Customs Court, First Division Protest 67/61653 against the decision of the collector of customs at the port

of Buffalo [Judgment for defendant.]

(Decided January 4, 1973) Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Joseph Schwartz and Irving Levine of counsel) for the plaintiff.

Harlington Wood, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Bernard J. Babb and Martin Kirshner, trial attorneys), for the defendant.

Before WATSON, MALETZ and RE, Judges Watson, Judge: The issue raised by this protest centers on the origin of the coconut oil content of an importation of sodium acyl coco isethionate (hereinafter called SACI) from Canada. Plaintiff protests only the assessment of an import tax of 2 cents per pound on the coconut oil content under sections 4581 and 4511(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended by T.D. 53965.- Plaintiff claims the

14581. Imposition of Tax. In addition to any other tax or duty imposed by law, there is hereby imposed upon the

(Continued)

exemption provided for in section 4513(b) of the Internal Revenue Code 2 for coconut oil which "was produced wholly from materials the growth or production of the Philippine Islands ***.” The basic issue in this case is therefore whether or not the coconut oil content of the imported SACI originated in the Philippine Islands.

Plaintiff makes a two-pronged argument in support of its claim; first, that it has presented evidence "establishing an unbroken chain of events whereby Philippine coconut oil was transported and then transformed *** into the SACI here under protest” and second, that it has now cured what it considers the only defect in its claim for exemption on the Bureau of Customs level—an improperly filled out certificate of origin for one of the shipments of oil in question.

The first argument is the only one worthy of consideration here since it reflects an understanding of plaintiff's burden of proof in this action. The second argument is unacceptable because it assumes that proof of a proposition in a court of law is the same as satisfactory proof on the administrative level. Even were we to accept completely plaintiff's version of what went on at the Bureau of Customs level and find that but for a defective certificate of origin for one shipment of coconut oil plaintiff would have received the tariff treatment it desired for the entire SACI importation, it would not be enough for plaintiff to prove its case by simply producing a proper certificate of origin or testimony on that point. Facts which may have been accepted as established by the administrative officials are not automatically estab

3

(Continued) following articles Imported into the United States, unless treaty provisions of the United States otherwise provide, a tax at the rates set forth, to be paid by the importer

Any article, merchandise or combination (except oils specified in section 4511), 10 percent or more of the quantity by weight of which consists of, or is derived directly or indirectly from, one or more of the products specified in sections 4561 and 4571, or of the oils, fatty acids, or salts specified in section 4511, a tax at the rate or rates per pound equal to that proportion of the rate or rates prescribed in sections 4561 and 4571 or section 4511 in respect of such product or products which the quantity by weight of the imported article, merchandise, or combination, consisting of or derived from such product or products, bears to the total weight of the imported

article, merchandise, or combination. 4511. Imposition of Tax.

(b) Additional rate on coconut oil.

There is hereby imposed (in addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection) a tax of 2 cents per pound to be paid by the processor, upon the first domestic processing of coconut oll or of any combination or mixture containing a substantial quantity of coconut oil with respect to which oil there has been no previous first domestic processing.

24513. Exemptions.

(b) From additional tax on coconut oil.

The additional tax imposed by section 4511(b) shall not apply when it is established, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, that the coconut oll (whether or not contained in a combination or mixture)

(1) is wholly the production of the Philippine Islands, any possession of the

« PředchozíPokračovat »