Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Imperial Products, Inc.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 9, 1978No. 77-9Published

1DissentLane, Judge

with whom Miller, Judge, joins.

With all due respect, the majority opinion ignores the definition of export value set forth in sections 402(b) and 402(f) (1) (A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956. Merely because the appraiser’s finding of value is expressed separately (12 cents per unit invoice price plus 6 cents per unit royalty fee), it cannot be presumed that 12 cents per unit is the statutorily prescribed export value, because such presumption does not logically flow from the appraisement. When an appraising official determines that export…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. The United States v. Pan American Import Corp., M. H. Garvey Co., the United States v. Hub Floral Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
  2. F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
  3. United States v. Alfred Kohlberg, Inc.United States Customs Court · 1939
  4. Superior Merchandise Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  5. Pan American Import Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API