alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OT/OG/201 1 14;0 T FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @l001/00 2



## U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N 0

Offic e o f Hearing s Washington , D.C . '"' ^ ^ ' 5 5 

# ^ ^ RECEIV^: C

jUK i 2 S 2St t Shan e K Nisse n FA A DOCKE T NO . CP04GL000 1 

## (EIR2002-GL.31.0034) HEARIN G DOCKE T (Civi l Penalty Action ) Administrativ e LH WJudg e Richiir dC . Goodwi n 

## Agenc y Withdrawa l o f

Complain t Th e Agenc y Attorne y hereb y notifie s Administrativ e Law Judg e Richar dC . Goodwi n that th e Agenc y hereb y withdrav^ s it s Complain t i n thi s matte r

an dask s tha

t th e matte r

b e dismissed . Tli e undersigne dbelieve s a n explanatio n i. s appropriate give n th e stron g factua l basi s th e Agenc y ha dfo r bringin g th e case . Accordin g to aCaliforni aPrisone r Locator , th e Responden t

i s stil l incarcerate dwithi n th e State o f Californi apriso n system . Hi s incarceratio n starte di n 2002 . Currentl y h e i s show n a s a n inmat e a t th e Corcoran facilit>' , inmate number CDC R#T76107 . Althoug h w e hav e no t bee n abl e t o updat e thi s informatio n recently , las t fal l w e were tol dthat

h e i s no t schedule dt o b e release dunti l 2017 . Th e cos t to th e Agenc y t o kee p thi s matte r ope n ou t weigh s any potential civi l penall y that

th e taxpayer s ma

y realiz e fro

maver y lon g ter mpriso n inmate . Consequently , it i s felt that th e Responden t

havin g spent

th e las t 9 year s i n jail , an

y penalty w e can asses s woul d b e inconsequentia l i

n deterrin g himfro

mfutur e badact s i f

th e jai l tim e doe s no t

d o it . Date dthi s 20" * da

y o f Jun e 2011 .
Chri s G . Zuralc s Senio r Attorne y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Grea t Lake s Region , AGL-7 K 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e De s Plaines , TT

. 6001 8 Phone : (847)294-771 3 Fax : (847 ) 294-749 807/08/201 1 14:0 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 2)002/00 2



## Certificat e o

f Servic e I hereb y certif

y that th e foregoin g Agenc y Withdrawa l o f Complain t

ha s bee n maile dthi s da

y b y Firs t Clas s Mai l to : Original an dOn e Copy : Hearin g Docke t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Mearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m201 4 On e Cop y to : Shan e Kyl e Nisse n T-7610 7 P.O . Bo x 880 0 Corcoran , C A 93212-830 9 On e Cop y to : Th e Honorabl e RichardC . Goodwi n Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E. , Roo mE-12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 Telephone : (202 ) 366-213 9 Attorne y Adviso r

(202 ) 366-213 9 Legal Assistan t Fax : (202)366-753 6 Date dthi s 20 * da

y o f Jun e 2011 .
Tammy Gardne r Lega l Technician F A A Great

Lake s
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the Quarterly Report of American Surgical Holdings, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, James A. Longaker, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 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 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o (d));
      and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of American
      Surgical Holdings, Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






AMERICAN
SURGICAL HOLDINGS, INC.




By:
            /s/
      James A. LongakerJames
      A. LongakerChief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)




Date: May
15, 2009
EXHIBIT 6

CONSENT OF APPOINTED ACTUARY

I consent to the use and incorporation by reference of the
following report in this Annual Form 40-F of Sun Life Financial Inc.:

My report dated February 13, 2013 on the valuation of the policy
liabilities and reinsurance recoverables of Sun Life Financial Inc. and its subsidiaries for its Consolidated Statements of Financial Position at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 and their change in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations for the year ended December 31, 2012 in accordance with accepted actuarial practice, including selection of appropriate assumptions and methods.

Dated February 13, 2013



|                                        |  | 
|--------------------------------------- |  | 
|/S/ Lesley Thomson                    |  | 
|                                        | 
|Lesley Thomson                          |  | 
|                                        | 
|Fellow, Canadian Institute of Actuaries |  | 
|Toronto, Canada                         |  |
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         In connection with this annual report of Transax International Limited
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Stephen Walters, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Stephen Walters
-------------------
Stephen Walters
Chief Executive Officer
April 18, 2008
Bulletin No. 2019-10 DRAFT VI RSOCNP - 1 IRC Meeting Handout 4/23/2019

Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

Line 

No.

USSGL 

Acct. USSGL Account Title

Begin/ 

End

Fed/ 

NonFed

Exch/ 

Nonexch

Budgetary 

Impact 

Indicator

Reporting 

Type Code

Addl. 

Info.

6.8

6.8 571300 Accrual of Amounts Receivable from Custodian or Non-Entity Assets Receivable from a 

Federal Agency - Other Than the General Fund of the U.S. Government

E F E/T E/U

8.9

8.9 571000 Transfer in of Agency Unavailable Custodial and Non-Entity Collections E F U

8.10

8.10 571200 Accrual of Agency Amount To Be Collected - Custodial and Non-Entity - General Fund of 

the U.S. Government

E F U

Accrual of entity's agency's amounts to be collected (RC 48)

Transfer-in of entity's agency's unavailable custodial and non-entity collections (RC 44)

Accruals for Entity Agency amounts to be collected in a TAS Other Than the General Fund of the U.S. 

Government - Nonexchange (RC 16)

Section VI

USSGL Crosswalk - Reclassified Statement Of Operations and Changes in Net Position

Fiscal Year 2019 Reporting
[Cite as State ex rel. Peterson v. Durkin, 2012-Ohio-3867.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. ) 

BOBBIE PETERSON, ) 

 ) CASE NO. 12 MA 96 

 RELATOR, ) 

 ) OPINION

 - VS - ) AND

 ) JUDGMENT ENTRY

JUDGE JOHN DURKIN, MAHONING ) 

COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, ) 

 ) 

 RESPONDENT. ) 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Relator’s Petition for Writ of Procedendo; 

 Respondent’s Combined Answer and 

 Motion to Dismiss. 

JUDGMENT: Petition for Writ of Procedendo Denied; 

 Motion to Dismiss Granted. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner: Bobbie Peterson, Pro Se

 #A506-955 

 Mansfield Correctional Institution 

 P.O. Box 788 

 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 

For Respondent: Attorney Ralph Rivera 

 Assistant Prosecutor 

 Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office 

 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor 

 Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

 Dated: August 3, 2012
[Cite as State ex rel. Peterson v. Durkin, 2012-Ohio-3867.]

PER CURIAM: 

¶{1} Relator Bobbie Peterson filed a Petition for Writ of Procedendo with this 

court on May 24, 2012. The petition requests this court to order Respondent Judge 

Durkin of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court to rule on Relator’s August 31, 

2011 motion titled “Motion to Impose a Valid Sentence that Complies with R.C. 

2941.25(A).” On May 29, 2012, Respondent filed a combined answer and motion to 

dismiss. 

¶{2} The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that a writ of procedendo is 

appropriate when “a court has either refused to render a judgment or has 

unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.” State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 

Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227 (1999). The criteria for relief in procedendo are 

well-established. Relator must demonstrate: (1) a clear legal right to proceed in the 

underlying matter; and (2) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 

the law. State ex rel. Charvat v. Frye, 114 Ohio St.3d 76, 868 N.E.2d 270, 2007-Ohio2882, ¶ 13. 

¶{3} Attached to the combined answer and motion to dismiss is a judgment 

entry dated September 2, 2011, which states, “The Defendant’s Motion to Impose a 

Valid Sentence Filed August 31, 2011, is overruled.” 09/02/11 J.E. This attachment 

establishes that the trial court has proceeded to judgment; it issued a ruling on the 

August 31, 2011 motion. Thus, the trial court's performance of the act requested 

renders the petition moot and requires dismissal. State ex rel. Howard v. Skow, 102 

Ohio St.3d 423, 2004-Ohio-3652, ¶ 9. This is because procedendo cannot be used to 

compel the performance of a duty already performed. State ex rel. Kreps v. 

Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663 (2000). 

¶{4} Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted and the request for 

extraordinary relief is denied. 
 - 2 -

¶{5} Final Order. Clerk to serve notice as provided by the Civil Rules. 

Vukovich, J., concurs. 

Donofrio, J., concurs. 

DeGenaro, J., concurs.
Exhibit 10.17

 EXHIBIT 10.17
 

 

 

 

 

 

 Kanis SA
 

 

 

 Dear Dr. Kanis,
 

 

 The following documents the agreed to changes in terms for the loans from Kanis SA to Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc.  
 

 

 	 

 Loan
	 

 Principal
	 Interest Rate
	 Current Maturity Date
	 

 Other Features
	 

 Revised Terms

	 1
	 $1,500,000
	 8%
	 June 30, 2015
	 Payment Premium of $150,000 due at maturity
	 Maturity Date and Payment Premium Revised to 10/1/2016.  

	 2
	 $3,000,000
	 8%
	 April 11, 2016
	 Convertible into no more than 250,000 shares at $4.00 each. Callable by Lender at July 1, 2015.  
	 Maturity Date Revised to 10/1/2016.  Loan is no longer callable by Lender.  

	 3
	 $3,000,000
	 8%
	 July 27, 2015
	 None
	 Maturity Date Revised to 10/1/2016.


 

 

 In consideration of the above changes to the loans from Kanis SA to CDTi, Kanis SA will be granted 80,000 warrants with a strike price of $1.75 and a term of 5 years.  
 

 Agreed upon this date: November 11, 2014
 

 

 Kanis SA
  Clean Diesel Technology, Inc.
 by: /s/John A. Kanis
  by: /s/ David E. Shea
 its: Director
  its: Chief Financial Officer
 

 

 

 


 1621 Fiske Place, Oxnard, California   93033  ●  Tel 1-805-486-4649  ●  Fax 1-805-205-1333  ●  www.cdti.com
(Reap. Dec. 10448)

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 24458, etc.

(Decided February 13, 1963)

*Stein & ShostaJc*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following agreement and stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, which is incorporated herein, *404that, on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, 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 from which exported, in the usual 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 incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values ex factory, net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as to any of the merchandise on the invoices covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases which is included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521 as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress which is subject to appraisement under Sec. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise on the dates of exportation involved herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise covered by the entries, the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, is unlike any articles manufactured or produced in the United States.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On. the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise here involved and that such value in each case was the invoice unit value, ex-factory, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BARR&MUDFORD

Attorneys at Law 

1824 Court Street 

Post Office Box 994390 

Redding, CA 96099-4390 

(530) 243-8008

Page 1 of 2 

Stipulation for Dismissal Without Prejudice

DUGAN BARR............................... State Bar No. 40663 

DOUGLAS MUDFORD................. State Bar No. 156392 

J. MICHAEL FAVOR ................... State Bar No. 85558 

DAVID CASE................................. State Bar No. 56701 

DOUGLAS H. NEWLAN .............. State Bar No. 032250 

BARR & MUDFORD 

1824 Court Street/P.O. Box 994390 

Redding, California 96099-4390 

Telephone: (530) 243-8008 

Fax: (530) 243-1648 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAURA A. BERRY; JOSHUA N. 

BERRY, a Minor, by and through his 

Guardian ad Litem, LAURA A. BERRY; 

and NEIL W. BERRY, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION; 

MCNEILUS TRUCK AND 

MANUFACTURING, INC., 

Defendants

NO. CIV. S-04-2701 DFL PAN 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff, LAURA A. BERRY; JOSHUA N. BERRY, a Minor, by and through his 

Guardian ad Litem, LAURA A. BERRY; and. NEIL W. BERRY, appearing through the 

undersigned counsel, and defendants, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION and 

MCNEILUS TRUCK AND MANUFACTURING, INC., appearing through undersigned 

counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 

Case 2:04-cv-02701-JAM-EFB Document 21 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BARR&MUDFORD

Attorneys at Law 

1824 Court Street 

Post Office Box 994390 

Redding, CA 96099-4390 

(530) 243-8008

Page 2 of 2 

Stipulation for Dismissal Without Prejudice

1. Defendant, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION, shall be dismissed without 

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

2. The parties are to bear their own costs and attorney fees. 

DATED: March _____, 2006. 

 BARR & MUDFORD, LLP 

 By /s/ Dugan Barr 

 DUGAN BARR 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

DATED: March _____, 2006. 

 STERLING & CLACK 

 By /s/ David E. Russo 

 DAVID E. RUSSO 

 Attorney for Defendants 

/cmc 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: Apr. 6, 2006 /s/ David F. Levi 

 DAVID E. LEVI 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 2:04-cv-02701-JAM-EFB Document 21 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


         The  undersigned,  a member of the Board of Directors and/or as Officer
of CE  GENERATION,  LLC, a corporation  registered in the State of Delaware (the
"Company"),  hereby  constitutes  and appoints Steven A. McArthur and Douglas L.
Anderson  and each of them,  as  his/her  true and lawful  attorney-in-fact  and
agent,  with full power of substitution and  resubstitution,  for and in his/her
stead, in any and all  capacities,  to sign on his/her behalf the Company's Form
10-K Annual  Report for the fiscal year ending  December 31, 2000 and to execute
any amendments thereto and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto,  and all
other documents in connection  therewith,  with the United States Securities and
Exchange  Commission and  applicable  stock  exchanges,  with the full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing  necessary or advisable
to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person,  hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent or his/her substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated as of March 28, 2001

/s/ Patrick J. Goodman                               /s/ Joseph M. Lillo
Patrick J. Goodman                                   Joseph M. Lillo


/s/ Larry Kellerman                                  /s/ Stefan Bird
Larry Kellerman                                      Stefan Bird

/s/ John L. Harrison                                 /s/ John O'Rourke
John L. Harrison                                     John O'Rourke
# C_2007188EN.01000301.xml

| 11.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 188/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 188/3

---

Commission Communication concerning the implementation of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of Community specifications under the Regulation)

(Publication of titles and references of Community specifications under the Regulation)

(2007/C 188/03)

| Organisation | Reference | Edition number | Title of the Community specifications | Edition date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Eurocontrol (1) | Spec-0100 | 2.0 | Interoperability and performance requirements for the flight message transfer protocol (FMTP) (2) | 14 June 2007 |

Organisation

Reference

Edition number

Title of the Community specifications

Edition date

Eurocontrol (1)

1

Spec-0100

2.0

Interoperability and performance requirements for the flight message transfer protocol (FMTP) (2)

2

14 June 2007

---

(1)  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation: rue de la Fusée 96, B-1130 Brussels, tel. (32-2) 729 90 11, fax (32-2) 729 51 90.

1

(2)  http://www.eurocontrol.int/ses/public/standard_page/fmtp_spec.html

2

---
No. 54097.

#### John Forsythe Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 68815-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J:

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
(LOGO)Countrywide
4500 PARK GRANADA
CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA 91302
(818) 225-3000


March 24, 2000

Grant Thornton LLP
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Gentlemen:

As of and for the year ended February 29, 2000,  Countrywide  Credit Industries,
Inc. and Subsidiaries (which includes its wholly-owned  subsidiary,  Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc.) ("the Company") has complied in all material respects with the
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's Uniform Single  Attestation for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this
same period,  the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions
policy in the amount of $30,000,000.


Carlos M. Garcia
Managing Director-Finance
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer


(P:\gt\2000\3-23-00 USAP)
No. 38881.

#### Protests 712757-G, etc., of Accounting & Tabulating Machine Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 10469)

#### Aut Customs Brokers, Inc., a/c Fadex Commercial Corp. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 877802; 877803.

(Decided March 18, 1963)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Bao, Judge:

Tbe appeals for reappraisement listed on schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, were submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> 1. That the merchandise here involved consists of automobiles imported after the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956; that said automobiles are identified on the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to said Customs Simplification Act (T.D. 54521), and are subject to appraisement under the provisions of Section 402a of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> 2. That on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the country of exportation for home consumption or for exportation to the United States.

> 3. That on or about the said dates of exportation, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States.

> 4. That the cost of production as defined in Section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended of the automobiles involved herein is as set forth in deutschemarks for the model and period of exportation indicated on Schedule “B” annexed hereto, plus, for each automobile invoiced with whitewall tires and/or sliding roof, DM 35.00 per set of whitewall tires and DM 187.50 for sliding roof; plus, for each automobile invoiced with luggage carriers and/or protective covers on seats and backs, DM 26.00 per luggage carrier and DM 2.20 per set of protective covers.

> 5. That the above-entitled appeals may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

Upon the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the *430determination of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeals for reappraisement and that such values were as set forth in deutsche marks for the model and period of exportation indicated on schedule B, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, plus, for each automobile invoiced with whitewall tires and/or sliding roof, DM 35 per set of whitewall tires and DM 187.50 for sliding roof; plus, for each automobile invoiced with luggage carriers and/or protective covers on seats and backs, DM 26 per luggage carrier and DM 2.20 per set of protective covers.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.