Legal Opinion

United States v. Continental Fwdg. Co.

United States Customs Court

Decided April 7, 1970No. A.R.D. 270; Entry No. 810129, etcPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Nao, Chief Judge:

This application for review again brings before the court the question of the propriety of appraisements based on the so-called “MITI” or “check” prices.

Basically, the facts are as follows: The imported merchandise, binoculars, could not be exported from Japan without an export license issued by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), an administrative agency of the Japanese Government. MITI would not approve an application for an export license unless it appeared that the purchase price of the merchandise was not lower than the standards adopted by it, which…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. Harris v. RunnelsSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
  3. John E. Rosasco Creameries, Inc. v. CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
  4. Dunlop v. MercerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
  5. United States v. Acme Steel Co.United States Customs Court · 1963

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. United States v. Continental Forwarding Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
  3. Philip J. Bernstein Enterprises v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
  4. TCW Special Credits, Inc. v. F/V Kassandra ZHigh Court of American Samoa · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API