TREASURY Department, Hon. M. M. LOGAN, Chairman, Committee on Claims, United States Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of April 18, 1939, enclosing three copies of bill S. 2171, for the relief of M. Seller & Co., and requesting a statement of this Department's views on this proposed legislation. From the record before the Department it appears that the firm of M. Seller & Co. imported certain china from Germany in connection with which additional duties were assessed under the provisions of paragraph I, section III, of the act of October 3, 1913 (38 Stat. 184). The merchandise was covered by seven entries filed at the port of Portland, Oreg., and the entry numbers, the date of entry, and additional duties assessed are as follows: The record also discloses that certain of the invoices filed in connection with the entries of this merchandise contained a slip, attached thereto by the shipper, reading as follows: (Translated.) "The purchasing power of the mark is still considerably higher in Germany than in other countries. Consequently the selling prices of these commodities in Germany are approximately percent lower than those charged in the invoice." The percentages stated in the blank in the above quotation varied from 52%1⁄2 to 621⁄2 and, at the time of entry, the importer made various deductions from the invoice values to enter at the values as represented by the memorandum attached to the invoice. The appraiser approved the entered value of the china covered by entry No. 33 and, in the case of the merchandise covered by the other entries, the appraiser returned the invoice values as correct, disallowing the deductions made by the importers. The collector filed an appeal for reappraisement of the merchandise covered by entry No. 33, and the importers filed appeals for reappraisement of the merchandise covered by the other entries. In the case of all the appeals the single general appraiser found the proper appraised value to be the invoice values without deductions. (Reappraisement Circulars (1922) 31521 and 31837.) The values thus found by the single general appraiser became final and conclusive and, as these values exceeded the entered values, the importer became liable for the payment of additional duties under the provisions of paragraph I of section III of the act of October 3, 1913, which provides in part as follows: 66* * * if the appraised value of any article of imported merchandise subject to an ad valorem duty or to a duty based upon or regulated in any manner by the value thereof shall exceed the value declared in the entry, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in addition to the duties imposed by law on such merchandise, an additional duty of 1 percent of the total appraised value thereof for each 1 percent that such appraised value exceeds the value declared in the entry * This paragraph further provides that the additional duties assessed shall not be remitted nor payment thereof in any way avoided except in cases arising from a manifest clerical error. As the additional duties incurred did not accrue as the result of a clerical error, the Department was without authority to remit them. The bill provides for the refund of "certain penalties in the amount of $7,147.80." The record before the Department does not reveal the basis for this claim as the additional duties which were incurred as a result of undervaluation total the sum of $5,210.36. So far-as the claim for relief from the additional duties covers the additional duties amounting to $5,210.36, the Department does not doubt the good faith of the importer in connection with the transactions which resulted in the assessment of the additional duties. This Department, however, has consistently declined to recommend the passage of legislation for the relief of importers for additional duties incurred for undervaluation, for the reason that such legislation would accord to certain importers special privileges which are not enjoyed by all under the law. The Department, accordingly, does not recommend the enactment of this bill. If this measure is nevertheless to be given favorable consideration by your committee, the Department does not believe that a refund in excess of the sum of $5,210.36 should be authorized, as this is the maximum amount of the additional duties that the records of the Department show was assessed in the case of these importations. Views substantially the same as those expressed in this letter were incorporated in a letter addressed to your committee on February 28, 1924, and in letters addressed to the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives on March 29, 1924, February 6, 1926, and April 23, 1928, in response to requests for suggestions and recommendations in connection with similar bills. Very truly yours, STEPHEN B. GIBBONS, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. PROVIDING FOR EXPENSES FOR SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE AIR ACCIDENTS MARCH 10, 1941.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. COCHRAN, from the Committee on Accounts, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. Res. 1301 The Committee on Accounts, to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 130) to provide for the expenses for the Select Committee to Investigate Air Accidents, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the resolution do pass. H. Repts., 77-1, vol. 2 77TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session { REPORT No. 222 INVESTIGATING NATIONAL-DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT MARCH 10, 1941.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. Cox, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. Res. 120] The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House Resolution 120, report the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution do pass with the following amendment: Page 2, line 6, after the word "shall", strike out the word "the" and insert in lieu thereof the word "be". |