alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Third Division,

August 17, 1954

No. 58328.

petition 7097-R (New York).

#### K & K Novelty Manufacturing Corp. *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

This is a petition for remission of additional duties filed under authority of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Said additional duties were assessed due to the fact that the final appraised value exceeded the value declared on entry. The merchandise consisted of what is described as “musical movements Reuge,” the word “Reuge” indicating the name of the foreign seller. Entry was made at a unit value of Swiss francs 2.80 and, on appraisement, this figure was increased to 2.95.

The secretary of the petitioner, a corporation, testified that he purchased these movements from the foreign seller, Mr. Reuge, while the latter was in the United States; that said Reuge quoted a price of 2.80, which the witness understood was the price at which the seller was offering this merchandise to everyone, except in the ease of larger quantities. However, he admitted on cross-examination that he did not know what price other customers paid and that his knowledge of the price of these movements was based on what the seller told him when he was in petitioner’s place of business and the order was placed.

The record further shows that petitioner’s broker requested information as to value from the United States appraiser, but the latter official reported that he had no information as to the value. Petitioner testified that his customs broker made entry but that he did not recall giving any instructions to said broker, as it was understood that the value was 2.80. Petitioner had no previous importations of this type of musical movements from Mr. Reuge.

It appears that this petitioner was not unversed in the business of importing and that it employed the services of a customs broker in making entry of its merchandise. In the instant case, the appraiser reported that he had no information as to the value of the merchandise. Therefore, under the decisions, petitioner was placed on notice to make an investigation of the value. *United States*v. *Aug. F. Stauff & Co.,*25 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 215, T. D. 49306; *United States*v. *H. S. Dorf & Co. of Pa., Inc.,*36 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 29, C. A. D. 392. In the case of *H. Gotland & Co.*v. *United States,*17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 51, T. D. 43337, the court, said:

> * * * Nor are we impressed with the argument that appellant is entitled to great consideration because the appraiser did not know the correct values of the merchandise. Had the appraiser accepted the statements contained in the invoices and entries, he would have been deceived, and, as a consequence, the customs revenue would have been defrauded. * * *

The record before us fails to show the “satisfactory evidence” required by the statute, as defined in *United States*v. *W. J. Westerfield,*40 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 115, C. A. D. 507.

There was a duty upon petitioner to enter the merchandise at the proper value and that duty was not discharged. *United States*v. *Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd.,*39 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 199, C. A. D. 487.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is denied.
(V.D. 129)

#### Verona Dyestuffs *v.*United States

Entry No. 92277, etc.

(Decided April 5, 1965)

*Eugene R. Pielcrell*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by this court in *Verona Dyestuffs*v. *United*States, 49 Cust. Ct. 286, Abstract 67165, wherein the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement. It has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the items marked “A” and designated on the invoices as “Product GA 1028” (Naphtopon B), and initialed “A” by Examiner J. J. O’Connor, Jr. on the invoices covered by the above protests, were appraised on the basis of United States value.

> 2. That said merchandise consists of esters and ethers of ethylene oxide in water solution and is not derived in whole or in part from any product provided for in Paragraphs 27 or 1651.

> 3. That the merchandise was appraised on the basis of United States value, pursuant to Paragraph 27(c) and (d), Tariff Act of 1930, and it is claimed that liquidation based on such appraisement is illegal, null and void where value has not been determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 402, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and the merchandise is not derived in whole or in part from any products provided for in Paragraphs 27 or 1651.

> 4. That at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise herein, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country *472of exportation, in the nsual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, is 350 per pound, less ocean freight and insurance.

> 5. That the home consumption price was DM 2.66 per kilo.

> 6. That the involved merchandise was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on and after February 27,1958, and is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. .54521).

> 7. That these protests may be submitted on this stipulation, being limited to the merchandise marked “A” as aforesaid.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and bold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved merchandise and that such value was 35 cents per pound, less ocean freight and insurance.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-01-1997
<CASH>                                      16,714,842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,160,092
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,562,199
<INVENTORY>                                 23,328,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            63,605,246
<PP&E>                                      16,700,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              99,983,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,940,621
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,152
<OTHER-SE>                                  85,389,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                99,983,299
<SALES>                                     39,101,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,101,657
<CGS>                                       22,979,932
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,979,932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,764,802
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               163,179
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,854,164
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,487,969
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,193,158
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,193,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

December 22, 1947

No. 52078.

protests 117290-K, etc. (San Diego, etc.).

#### Madeline Britton et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
---

Exhibit 32.1

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                          
|---------------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. § 1350,                                  
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                             
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Xeno Transplants
  Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June
  30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the Report), I, Wayne Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                       
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                     
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of the Company.

| | /s/
      Wayne Smith                             
| | --------------------------------------------------
| | Wayne Smith                                       
| | Chief Financial Officer                           
| | (principal financial and accounting
      officer)
| | September 24, 2007                                

---
No. 60325.

protests 200387-K, etc. (New York).

#### Air Clearance Association, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic rutile similar in all material respects to that the subject of *International Lapidaries Co. v. United States*(35 Oust Ct. 230, C. D. 1780), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the period ended December 31,
2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/  DAVID M. GANDOSSIDavid M. GandossiChief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4727-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4727-DR), dated August 12, 2023, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 21, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 12, 2023.

Madison County for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2023-23195 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit 32.1
 
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc.
 DATE:  September 9, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Byron L. BergrenByron L. BergrenPresident and Chief
Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Keith E. PlowmanKeith E. PlowmanExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                             Exhibit 4.1


                             UNION PLAN PERFORMANCE

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                                       AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL
                                                                                           RETURNS AS OF
                                                            YTD                            JULY 31, 2003
                                                          RETURNS                      --------------------
                               FUND       EXPENSE          AS OF             1             3              5          10
FUND NAME                     NUMBER       RATIO       AUG. 18, 2003       YEAR          YEAR           YEAR        YEAR
---------                     ------      -------     ---------------     ------        ------         ------      ------
<S>                           <C>         <C>         <C>                 <C>           <C>            <C>         <C>
Amer Funds New Persp A*         2777       0.82%           13.53%         13.45%        -7.02%          4.11%      11.03%
Enesco Group, Inc.*             2408         --             7.21%          3.78%         5.74%            --          --
Extended Mkt Index Inv            98       0.26%           23.92%         21.53%        -7.50%          2.09%       9.20%
International Growth Inv          81       0.67%           14.31%          6.80%       -11.75%         -2.79%       5.39%
Morgan Growth Fund Inv            26       0.48%           18.57%         16.50%       -12.11%         -0.19%       9.83%
Prime Money Mkt Fund              30       0.33%            0.61%          1.18%         3.03%          3.96%       4.48%
Total Bond Mkt Index Inv          84       0.22%            0.68%          5.19%         7.79%          6.32%       6.52%
Total Stock Mkt Idx Inv           85       0.20%           16.61%         12.54%        -9.29%         -0.33%       9.69%
U.S. Growth Fund Investor         23       0.50%           14.84%          9.03%       -26.98%        -11.06%       5.10%
Wellington Fund Inv               21       0.36%            9.45%          7.24%         4.87%          4.75%      10.36%
Windsor II Fund Inv               73       0.42%           13.87%          9.34%         1.56%          0.88%      10.59%
</Table>


* YTD return as of Jul 31, 2003, and annual returns as of Jul 31, 2003. Except
for funds with *, all are Vanguard funds.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 378

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the conviction of ten members

of Iran’s Jewish community.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 20, 2000

Mr. ENGEL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the

conviction of ten members of Iran’s Jewish community.

Whereas on the eve of the Jewish holiday of Passover 1999,

13 Jews, including community and religious leaders in

the cities of Shiraz and Isfahan, were arrested by the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran and accused of

spying for the United States and Israel;

Whereas the 13 defendants were tried in a Revolutionary

Court that was closed to all independent journalists, outside media, international observers, and family members;

Whereas no evidence was brought forth at these trials other

than taped ‘‘confessions’’;

Whereas Jews in Iran are prohibited from holding any positions that would give them access to state secrets;
2

•HCON 378 IH

Whereas the judge in the case also served as prosecutor, chief

investigator, and arbiter of punishment;

Whereas the Secretary of State has identified the case of the

13 Jews in Shiraz as ‘‘one of the barometers of United

States-Iran relations’’;

Whereas countless nations have expressed their concern for

these individuals and especially their human rights under

the rule of law;

Whereas ten of the 13 Jews were convicted on July 1, 2000,

of spying for Israel, and were sentenced to prison terms

of four to 13 years;

Whereas the international community, including President

Clinton, has condemned the convictions;

Whereas Iran must show signs of respecting human rights as

a prerequisite for improving its relationship with the

United States; and

Whereas President Khatami and the Iranian Parliament were

elected on a platform of moderation and reform: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 United States Government—

4 (1) should condemn, in the strongest possible

5 terms, the arrest of the 13 Jews by the authorities

6 of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the unfair proce7 dures employed against them leading up to and

8 throughout their trials, and their convictions by such

9 authorities;
3

•HCON 378 IH

1 (2) should demand that these convictions be

2 overturned and that the individuals be released

3 forthwith; and

4 (3) should ensure that Iran’s handling of this

5 case is a benchmark for determining the nature of

6 current and future United States-Iran relations.

Æ
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 14, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00299-CV

MCKENNA MCGUIRE, Appellant

V.

THE MARQUIS AT LADERA VISTA, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-1-CV-22-000330

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a default judgment signed March 8, 2022. The notice 

of appeal was filed March 14, 2022.

Appellant has not paid the filing fee of $205.00, and no evidence that appellant 

is excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs 

has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. On June 7, 2022, the court ordered appellant 

to pay the filing fee on or before June 17, 2022, and further warned appellant that if 
2

he did not do so, the appeal was subject to being dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. 

As of the date of this opinion, appellant has not paid the filing fee. Accordingly, the 

appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of 

case because appellant failed to comply with court order or notice from clerk 

requiring response or other action within specified time).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Wilson.