19 U.S.C. § 1402
Repealed. Pub. L. 96–39, title II, § 201(b), July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 201
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 539
cases, 1935–1999 · leading case: A. Zerkowitz & Co., Inc. v. The United States, 435 F.2d 576 (C.C.P.A. 1970).
A. Zerkowitz & Co., Inc. v. The United States, 435 F.2d 576 (C.C.P.A. 1970). “Therefore, Zerkowitz contends, section 1336 was not applicable to the merchandise in suit, and, since 19 U.S.C. § 1402 (a), read in conjunction with 19 U.”
Barr v. United States, 324 U.S. 83 (1945). “590 , 708, 19 U.S.C. § 1402 , in the assessment of ad valorem duties it is necessary to ascertain the foreign market value, which normally means the foreign home value.”
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 494 F. Supp. 1190 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “708 (1930) (codified with amendments at 19 U.S.C. § 1402 ) with 42 .Stat. 949 (1922) (quoted in pertinent part at n.”
United States v. Int'l Com. Co., 28 Cust. Ct. 629 (Cust. Ct. 1952). “The condition created a controlled export market, thereby removing export value, section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930 ( 19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), as a consideration for appraisement of the present merchandise.”
Jimlar Corp. v. United States, 647 F. Supp. 932 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE, Chief Judge: The question presented in this case pertains to the proper valuation of certain men’s footwear imported from Taiwan, and which was appraised by the Customs Service at the American selling price pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1402 (g) (1976)…”
Timken Co. v. U. S. Customs Serv., 531 F. Supp. 194 (D.D.C. 1981). “USCS compiled the documents in connection with its responsibility to value the imported merchandise, tapered roller bearings, and assess customs duties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1402 . Imported roller bearings must be valued for assessment of ordinary duty at foreign or export…”
Stride Rite Corp. v. United States, 605 F. Supp. 279 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985). “ASP is a method of valuation formerly found at 19 U.S.C. § 1402 (a)(4) (1976) which was repealed in 1979.”
M&M/Mars Snackmaster Div. of Mars, Inc. v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 1075 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984). “The parties agree that former 19 U.S.C. § 1402 (f) is the proper basis for appraising the value of the imported merchandise.”
Timken Co. v. United States Customs Serv., 491 F. Supp. 557 (D.D.C. 1980). “19 U.S.C. § 1402 (aXl), (2), (3) and (4); Treasury Decision 54521.”
Hambro Auto. Corp. v. United States, 458 F. Supp. 1220 (Cust. Ct. 1978). “However it is expressed the mistakes which were made must be considered as being, in essence, misunderstandings of the law, namely, the law governing cost of production, section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1402 (f). 6 The mistakes were…”
United States v. Arrow Upholstery Co., 24 Cust. Ct. 539 (Cust. Ct. 1950). “At the trial, counsel for the respective parties agreed that there was no foreign, export, or United States value for this merchandise, and the trial court adopted as the proper basis of appraisement the cost-of-production formula, as found in section 402 (f) of said act ( 19 U.…”
Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc. v. United States, 595 F. Supp. 1154 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984). “54521, and were appraised on *1155 the basis of cost of production (COP) pursuant to section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1402 (f). 1 There is no dispute that cost of production is the proper basis of appraisement.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1402(c) — 1 case
Kurt Orban Co. v. United States, 42 Cust. Ct. 649 (Cust. Ct. 1959).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1402(g) — 1 case
A. Zerkowitz & Co., Inc. v. The United States, 435 F.2d 576 (C.C.P.A. 1970). “Therefore, Zerkowitz contends, section 1336 was not applicable to the merchandise in suit, and, since 19 U.S.C. § 1402 (a), read in conjunction with 19 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.