alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8380)

Entry No. 804836.

#### Atlas Shipping Company *v.*United States

(Decided January 5, 1955)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*434Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeal to reappraisement listed above are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *United States v. Schroeder & Tremayne, Inc.,*et ah, Suit 4783 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the entered values of the merchandise involved in the ease listed herein are equal to the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, 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, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be deemed submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the 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 value of the‘merchandise here involved, and that such values were the entered values.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

November 29, 1949

No. 53753.

protests 63251-K, etc. (New York).

#### Winsor & Newton, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*216Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc. v. United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 213 

Celebrating the outstanding contributions of California’s wine industry to 

the State, the Nation, and winemaking as a whole, and supporting 

the goals and ideals of ‘‘California Wine Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mrs. TAUSCHER, 

Mr. BERMAN, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HERGER, Mr. LANTOS, Ms. ZOE

LOFGREN of California, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. LEWIS

of California, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, 

Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. CALVERT, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. GALLEGLY, Ms. 

WATSON, Mrs. CAPPS, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. STARK, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. 

ROHRABACHER, Mr. FARR, Mrs. BONO, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. 

NUNES, and Mrs. DAVIS of California) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Celebrating the outstanding contributions of California’s wine 

industry to the State, the Nation, and winemaking as 

a whole, and supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘California Wine Month’’. 

Whereas winemaking has been a California tradition since the 

late 1700s, when the practice was introduced by Spanish 

missionaries and, in the nearly two hundred and fifty 

years that have followed, grapevines have spread far beVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:53 Sep 19, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HC213.IH HC213

bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 213 IH 

yond the confines of the Spanish missions and now dot 

lush hillsides and valleys throughout the State; 

Whereas the ideal climate, beautiful scenery, geographic diversity, and grape growers and vintners of unparalleled 

expertise all combine to make California the perfect place 

to produce some of the world’s finest wines; 

Whereas California’s dynamic winemakers and growers are 

comprised of generations of families whose names are 

known and trusted and who have led the wine quality 

revolution worldwide; 

Whereas with more than 2,300 wineries and 4,600 grape 

growers, California is proud to be the world’s fourth largest wine producer; 

Whereas California’s wine industry contributes billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs that strengthen 

our Nation’s economy; 

Whereas many of California’s vintners are carrying on centuries-old agricultural traditions, while simultaneously 

utilizing environmentally friendly technologies and pioneering sustainable growing practices; 

Whereas the Governor of California has proclaimed September 2007, as ‘‘California Wine Month’’ for the third 

year in a row: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress — 

3 (1) recognizes and joins in celebrating the out4 standing contributions of California’s wine industry 

5 to the State, the Nation, and winemaking as a 

6 whole; and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HCON 213 IH 

1 (2) fully supports the goals and ideals of ‘‘Cali2 fornia Wine Month’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
# C_2018104EN.01002702.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-506/15) (1)

1

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - Flat-rate financial corrections - Area-related aid scheme - Concept of permanent pasture - Conditions for imposing a flat-rate correction of 25 % - Communication under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Cross-compliance - Monitoring of statutory management requirements - Monitoring of good agricultural and environmental conditions - Duty to state reasons - Deduction of a correction annulled by a judgment of the General Court))

(2018/C 104/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou, O. Tsirkinidou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

1

---
# C_2015118EN.01001502.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 16 January 2015 — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health srl

(Case C-15/15)

(2015/C 118/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: New Valmar BVBA

Applicant:

Defendant: Global Pharmacies Partner Health srl

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 45 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federal unit of a Member State, such as, in the present case, the Flemish Community in the Federal State of Belgium, which requires every undertaking which has its place of establishment within the territory of that unit to draw up, pursuant to Article 52 of the Laws of 18 July 1966 on the use of languages in administrative matters (Belgisch Staatsblad of 2 August 1966) in conjunction with Article 10 of the Decree of the Flemish Community of 19 July 1973 (Belgisch Staatsblad of 6 September 1973), invoices which are of a cross-border character exclusively in the official language of that federal unit, on pain of nullity of those invoices, which nullity is to be determined by the courts of their own motion?

---
# C_2017277EN.01006002.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/60

---

Order of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — It Works v EUIPO — KESA Holdings Luxembourg (IT it WORKS)

(Case T-778/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 277/86)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

1

---
#### Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. *v.*United States

No. 6737.

Entry No. 726327.

Invoice dated London, England, February 1945.

Certified February 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 30, 1945.

(Decided January 10, 1947)

*Mary Behan*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the 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 value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

June 12, 1958

No. 62067.

#### American Cut Crystal Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 312780-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protests were dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        1,213,320
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         38,507
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             219,063
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           360,924
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,831,814
<COMMON>                                           282,034
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                              (74)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                163,587
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                     445,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          4,299
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                               643,173
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                       0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                           82,172
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        6,806
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         16,415
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                       354
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                     633,048
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    1,831,814
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                          168,667
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                15,525
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         129,935
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         145,460
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                             23,207
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                     435
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                      23,642
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            13,741
<NET-INCOME>                                         9,901
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             51
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        9,850
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            10,110
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           41,014
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                              18,995
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.70



</TABLE>
# C_2015178EN.01002701.xml

| 1.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/27

---

Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-39/15)

(2015/C 178/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the proposal to transfer the applicant’s pension rights in the EU’s pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 15 October 2014 fixing the calculation of the applicant’s pension rights to be credited which were acquired before his entry into service at the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 15 October 2014 fixing the calculation of the applicant’s pension rights to be credited which were acquired before his entry into service at the Commission;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2015302EN.01001901.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/19

---

Appeal brought on 24 June 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 April 2015 in Case T-393/13: SolarWorld AG v European Commission

(Case C-312/15 P)

(2015/C 302/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Solsonica SpA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

| — | Set aside the General Court’s order in Case T-393/13 with regard to the General Court’s findings that there is no longer a need to adjudicate the Applications for annulment and damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the General Court’s order in Case T-393/13 with regard to the General Court’s findings that there is no longer a need to adjudicate the Applications for annulment and damages;

| — | Declare the Application for annulment and the action for damages in Case T-393/13 admissible; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the Application for annulment and the action for damages in Case T-393/13 admissible; and

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment and the action for damages. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment and the action for damages.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court manifestly erred in finding that there was no longer a need to adjudicate on its action for annulment and its action for damages.

---
# C_2018142EN.01004101.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-316/15) (1)

1

((ERDF - Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project - Article 40(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Justification for the public contribution - Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 - Time-limit not respected))

(2018/C 142/52)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, D. Recchia and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 2230 of 31 March 2015 refusing to confirm to the Republic of Poland a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘Creation of Innovative Services at the IBM Shared Services Centre in Wrocław’ under Priority Axis No 4 of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
No. 40378.

#### Protest 918749-G of Greenberg & Josefsberg (New York).

*533Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of spring hand scales similar to those the subject of Abstract 38504. The claim as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
Share Knowledge ~ Save a Life 

ZERO FATALITIES

SOFA ALERT

PLEASE POST IMMEDIATELY

March 3, 2021: LaMirada, CA –At approximately 03:25 am EDT, a

conductor was fatally injured during a shoving operation. The employee 

was pinned between the rear of a set out Distributed Power (DP) 

locomotive and the rear car when the rear car struck the DP locomotive. 

The conductor was 46 years of age with 7 years of service.

Take Away

While these recent cases have not yet been analyzed, the SOFA Working 

Group is concerned by the 53 SOFA Defined Serious Injuries and 6 SOFA 

related fatalities that occurred during 2020 and reminds all employees to 

remain vigilant during switching operations by not only protecting the shove 

movement, but also protecting themselves by avoiding close or no clearances 

hazards. Last, but not least, remember to always hold a job briefing whenever 

the job or situation changes.

As a cross-industry collaboration for over 20 years, the SOFA Working Group has identified the Possible 

Contributing Factors for more than 210 switching operations fatalities since 1992. The SOFA Working Group 

reports its finding and emerging data trends with the goal of zero fatalities in the railroad industry.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Pacific Flyway
No. 46349.

#### Protests 9-K, etc., of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstracts 41633, 38680, and *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20) the articles in question were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 13 (Monday, January 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-791]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-30-000]


Newark Bay Cogeneration Partnership, L.P., Complainant v. PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C. Public Service Electric and Gas Company, 
Respondent; Notice Shortening Comment Period

January 12, 2007.
    On January 9, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Complaint in 
the above-docketed proceeding. The notice established a period for 
filing protests or motions to intervene in response to this complaint.
    By this notice, the date for filing motions to intervene or 
protests is shortened to and including January 22, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-791 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
January 18, 1971

No. 23,674

#### United States v Daniel F. Yingst, PVT, U. S. Array (CM 422424).

ORDERED:

That the Petition be, and the same is, hereby granted; and it is further

ORDERED:

That the charges be, and the same are, hereby dismissed.
# C_2015178EN.01002601.xml

| 1.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/26

---

Action brought on 3 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-37/15)

(2015/C 178/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim to pay him the double resettlement allowance when he moved to live in Switzerland.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 May 2014 rejecting the applicant’s claim for payment of the resettlement allowance corresponding to the second month of his basic salary; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 May 2014 rejecting the applicant’s claim for payment of the resettlement allowance corresponding to the second month of his basic salary;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---