alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013086EN.01001003.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 January 2013 — Alpina River Cruises GmbH and Nicko Tours GmbH v Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti — Capitaneria di Porto di Chioggia

(Case C-17/13)

2013/C 86/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alpina River Cruises GmbH, Nicko Tours GmbH

Applicants:

Defendant: Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti — Capitaneria di Porto di Chioggia

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 (1) be interpreted as applying to cruises carried out between ports within a Member State without different passengers embarking and disembarking in those ports, in that those cruises start and end with the same passengers embarking and disembarking in the same port within that Member State?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7).

1

---
EXHIBIT 8.1



The following table sets forth the significant subsidiaries owned, directly or indirectly, by us.



|                                                                |  |                        |  |           |  
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | --------- | -
|Name                                                            |  | Country                |  | Ownership |  
|Wing Shing Products (BVI) Company Limited                       |  | British Virgin Islands |  | 100.0     | %
|Wing Shing Overseas Limited                                     |  | British Virgin Islands |  | 100.0     |  
|Pentalpha Enterprises Limited #                                 |  | Hong Kong              |  | 100.0     |  
|Pentalpha Hong Kong Limited #                                   |  | Hong Kong              |  | 100.0     |  
|Kwong Lee Shun Trading Company Limited #                        |  | Hong Kong              |  | 100.0     |  
|Dongguan Wing Shing Electrical Products Factory Company Limited |  | China                  |  | 100.0     |  
|Global-Tech USA, Inc.                                           |  | United States          |  | 100.0     |  
|Pentalpha Macau Commercial Offshore Limited                     |  | Macau                  |  | 100.0     |  
|Global Lite Array (BVI) Limited                                 |  | British Virgin Islands |  | 76.8      |  
|Lite Array (BVI) Company Limited*                               |  | British Virgin Islands |  | 76.8      |  
|Lite Array, Inc.*                                               |  | United States          |  | 76.8      |  
|Global Display Limited #                                        |  | Hong Kong              |  | 100.0     |  
|GT Investments (BVI) Limited                                    |  | British Virgin Islands |  | 100.0     |  
|Dongguan Lite Array Company Limited                             |  | China                  |  | 100.0     |  
|Lite-Array (OLED) H.K. Limited1                                 |  | Hong Kong              |  | 100.0     |  
|Global Optics (HK) Limited2                                     |  | Hong Kong              |  | 100.0     |  
|MasterWerke Ltd.3                                               |  | United States          |  | 100.0     |
Before the First Division,

November 30, 1942

No. 47756.

#### Protest 45602-K of T. C. Weygandt Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

The report of the Government chemist showed that the sample is a moulding wax composed of a mixture of animal or vegetable wax, chalk, small amounts of rosin and iron oxide, and that wax is the component of chief value.

On the record presented the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry, taking tax at the rate of 2 cents per pound on the total weight of the imported article, which is equal to the proportion of the highest rate prescribed in section 602J4, *supra,*namely, 5 cents, in respect of the wax which the quantity by weight of such wax, namely, 40 percent, bears to the total weight of the imported article.
No. 55639.

#### Kline & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 126315-K (S), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It iras stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currencies involved in the liquidation of the entries'7for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currencies of the invoices should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs. Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2168 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to modify the definition of 

supervisor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2012 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. HARKIN) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to modify the 

definition of supervisor. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Re-empowerment of 

5 Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction 

6 Tradesworkers Act’’ or the ‘‘RESPECT Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 

8 ACT. 

9 Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act 

10 (29 U.S.C. 152(11)) is amended— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2168 IS

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘and for a majority of the indi2 vidual’s worktime’’ after ‘‘interest of the employer’’; 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘assign,’’; and 

4 (3) by striking ‘‘or responsibly to direct them,’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Memorandum

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Subject: Jet Operation Ratios Date: March 2007

From: Miguel Vasconcelos

AAS-400

Reply to

Attn. of:

To: Memo to File

A jet operation level of 18,000 annual operations or 11% of total operations at SMO are not

unlike jet operations elsewhere. There is nothing unusual about this. Many reliever and GA

airports, including many with 5,000-foot runways like SMO, have similar or larger ratios of jet

operations ratios. As shown by these examples:

• Chicago Executive (PWK) 30% of total operations are jets.

Chicago ADO, June 1,2007.

• Hanscom (BED) 18% of total operations are jets.

Bushnell, Davis. Hanscom Jet Flights Rise 8.9 Percent, Noise Complaints Drop. Boston Globe, January 30, 2005.

• Stuart (SUA) 13% of total operations are jets.

FAA, Orlando ADO.

• Scottsdale Airport (SDL) 11% of total operations are jets.

Scottsdale Airport 14 CFR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update, Table 2N, p. 2-15 and Exhibit 2G.

• Santa Monica (SMO) 11% of total operations are jets.

• Van Nuys (VNY) 10% of total operations are jets.

Van Nuys Airport Part 161 Study, Context, Scope and Schedule, LA WA, March 6, 2006.

• Centennial Airport (APA) 7.5% of total operations are jets.

Centennial Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposures & Land Use Compatibility Study Program, Table C3, p. C.32.

• Ft. Lauderdale Exec (FXE) 8.7% oftotal operations are jets.

Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport Part 150 Noise Compatibility Planning Study Update, December 2002, p. 131.

• Collin Co. Regional (TKI) 8.1% of total operations are jets.

http://mastelplan.mckinneytexas. orglAssoc iationsl 12S/data/forms/Z 40104-Final%20CH%202%20. doc

• Ohio State University (OSU) 8.0% of total operations are jets.

http://osua irport. orgldeve Iopmen tlmasterplan _binlc hapterlforecast. pdf

EXHIBIT

I IJ6
No. 47791.

#### Protests 88269-K, etc., of Wm. A. Higgins & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From an examination of the official papers the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the action of the collector. The protests were therefore overruled.
#### Nippon Dry Goods Co. *v.*United States

No. 6221.

Invoices dated Yokohama, Japan, November 11, 1935, etc.

Certified November 12, 1935, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 2, 1935, etc.

Entry No. 15042, etc.

(Decided October 2, 1945)

*Sharrelts & Hillis (Edward P. Sharretls of*counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

The appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, involve the proper dutiable value of certain rayon and wool wearing apparel imported from Japan.

Counsel for the respective parties have agreed that certain items of the merchandise consist of rayon articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Dry Goods Co.,*Reap. Dec. 5006, and that the issue and the conditions as to the market value are the same as the issue aiid the conditions in the cited case, and that record has been admitted in evidence in this case.

Upon the agreed facts and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the items of merchandise marked “A” and checked JWT on the invoices are the appraised values, less any additions made by the importer by reason of the so-called Japanese consumption tax, to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 10.1 


 


CONFIDENTIAL 


November 2, 2007


Soo Hong Jeong
#202 Sam-Ik Park Villa 
248 Gumi-Dong
Bundang, Seongnam, Kyeonggi
Korea 463-802 


          Re: Extension of your Employment Agreement 


Dear S. H.: 


Reference is made to the October 29, 2006 Letter Agreement between yourself and Photronics, Inc. extending your Employment Agreement dated June 9, 2006 (the “Agreement”) for an additional period of one year. 


This letter will amend your Agreement to renew the Agreement for an additional period of one year beginning on October 28, 2007 and ending on October 27, 2008. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement will remain the same. 


Please indicate your acceptance of the amendment of your Agreement by signing the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to the undersigned.


Sincerely, 


/s/ Michael J. Luttati 


Michael J. Luttati 


Chief Executive Officer 



AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED 
 


	
By: 

	
/s/ Soo Hong Jeong                              


		 
	
Soo Hong Jeong 


		 
	
Date: 

	
November 6, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000884382
<NAME> PRIMEDIA INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          22,978
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  236,819
<ALLOWANCES>                                    37,530
<INVENTORY>                                     27,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               322,500
<PP&E>                                         209,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                  93,451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,485,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          468,745
<BONDS>                                      1,656,541
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          470,280
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       785,865
<OTHER-SE>                                   (943,712)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,485,990
<SALES>                                      1,487,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,487,595
<CGS>                                          341,879
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  341,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,166,509
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             136,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (159,124)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,685)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (157,439)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (15,401)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (172,840)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.84)


</TABLE>
Allen County Council 

City-County Building 

One East Main Street, Room 102 

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802 

Phone: (260) 449-7233 Fax: (260) 422-7679 

October n , 2010 

The Honorable Ray I^Hood 

Secretary 

U.S. DqDartment of Transportation 

400 7'^' St., SW 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

I am writing to offer my strong support to the Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority's application 

for the Small Community Air Service Development Program (Docket OST-2010-0124). The Authority is 

taking a novel and unique approach toward encouraging competitive activity and cost reduction among 

passenger air service providers at the Fort Wayne International Airport (FWA). 

Economic development is essential to Northeastern Indiana, and community leaders in the region have 

been working aggressively to create a business climate that supports growth, and a vibrant airport is a key 

component to the overall success of our cfFfMts. The geography of the Fort Wayne market presents a 

difficult challenge for passCTiger service development at FWA. 

Traditionally airports have sought to bring in low-cost carriers or sell their passenger service providers on 

additional destinatioi^. As the airline industry continues to consolidate, the opportunities to "sell" the 

airlines on expanding their air service to smaller airports are increasingly difficult. The Authority's 

solution to this problem is unique and is a credit to their focus on developing appropriate niEirket research 

and identifying creative applications £OT the air service develc^ment challenge. 

Through the implementation of a shared use platform, multiple airlines will be able to use a common 

point to issue tickets, change reservations, and otherwise process their individual passCTgers. By 

removing the need for individual points of access, costs will be reduced, since there will be common data 

lines and singular equipment, and the airport will realize an increase in flexibility since all airUnes will be 

able to utilize all gales. Additionally, lead time for new services will be reduced, technological barriers 

removed, and physical expansion needs revised, all of which will serve to make operations at FWA more 

cost effective and attractive. 

Once again, 1 would like to express my stroi^ support for this application and urge you to give it every 

possible consideration. Thank you. 

Pa^la S. H< 

P/^ident, Allen County Council
No. 47139.

#### Protest 894007-G of Sprouse Reitz Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 43374 the salt and pepper shakers and antimony dogs in question were held dutiable as table or household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
|    |                                                                                                                                |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems, Inc. (the “registrant”); |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |

|          |
|----------|
|          |  |  |  |
| By  | /s/ Bradley C. Anderson |   |
|     | Bradley C. Anderson |   |
|     | Executive Vice President – Finance and Chief Financial Officer |
|     | Amtech Systems, Inc. |   |
|     | Date: | January 24, 2014 |   |
No. 56720.

protests 178813-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of beaded bags the same in all material respects as those the classification of which was involved in Abstract 56124, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 96-7568.

#### Grant *v.*Rivers, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Before the Third Division,

October 31, 1941

No. 46526.

#### Protests 43641-K, etc., of Lord *&*Taylor et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty as claimed.
(Reap. Dec. 9719)

#### Perryman, Mojonier Co. et al. v. United States

Entry No. DE 2657, etc.

(Decided May 31, 1960)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties herein:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States concerning the merchandise referred to in the attached Schedule “A”, as follows:

> 1. Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases, which, in *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*C.D. 1519, this Court held to be *743subject to appraisement separately, according, to the value of each class of article.

> 2. At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices 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 in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, are the unit prices shown in the attached Schedule “A”, in U.S. currency, net, packing included; the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher.

> 3. The appeals for reappraisement are abandoned as to all entries and merchandise not listed in the attached Schedule “A”, and the said appeals for reappraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold 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 herein involved, and that such value in each case is the unit price as shown in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made part of my decision herein, in United States currency, net, packing included.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent, the appeals are hereby dismissed.

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

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
             EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JULY
             2, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
             THE YEAR ENDED JULY 2, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
             ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1000

<S>                                                        <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          JUL-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                             JUL-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                               JUL-02-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              12-MOS
<CASH>                                                         1,485
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                157,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   6,680
<INVENTORY>                                                   87,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             262,571
<PP&E>                                                       174,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                                90,511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               607,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        142,484
<BONDS>                                                      190,948
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                      22,204
<OTHER-SE>                                                   244,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 607,190
<SALES>                                                      660,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             660,248
<CGS>                                                        460,754
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                460,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             176,691
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            16,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                8,269
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   3,771
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            4,498
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   4,498
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.20


</TABLE>
No. 48862.

#### Protest 98930-K of Chr. Bjelland & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Two letters were received in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and the collector’s letter on behalf of the Government. The latter disclosed that the missing 6 bundles were reported by the discharging inspector as “manifested not found,” indicating to the collector that the 6 bundles were not found for delivery and that the liquidator “presumed” the 6 bundles were landed. Consequently no allowance in duties was made therefor. The court was of the opinion that the evidence submitted clearly supported the importer’s *282contention that the 6 bundles of anchovies were not landed in the United States. In accordance therewith the collector was directed to reliquidate, refunding duty upon the 12 eases of anchovies.