American Bayridge Corp. v. United States

23 Ct. Int'l Trade 18, 35 F. Supp. 2d 942, 1999 CIT 8, 23 C.I.T. 18, 21 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1192, 1999 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 8
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedJanuary 21, 1999
DocketSlip Op. 99-8; Court 98-08-02682
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 Ct. Int'l Trade 18 (American Bayridge Corp. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Bayridge Corp. v. United States, 23 Ct. Int'l Trade 18, 35 F. Supp. 2d 942, 1999 CIT 8, 23 C.I.T. 18, 21 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1192, 1999 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 8 (cit 1999).

Opinion

JUDGMENT

BARZILAY, Judge.

This case contesting the decision of the United States Customs Service, in HQ962042, denying protest number 3401-98-100012 as to the classification of imported merchandise (“predrilled studs”) and the effective date of an interpretive ruling issued pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1625(e) having been submitted for decision; and the Court, after due deliberation, having rendered a decision in Slip Opinion No. 98-166; and

Whereas the United States Customs Service has made available to the Court port instructions which it intends to issue in light of said Slip Opinion, a copy of which will be filed with the Court upon entry of final judgment by the Court in this case, declaring its intention to post Bulletin notices of liquidation or reliquidation, as appropriate, within 30 days of its receipt of Supplemental Information Letters or timely protests from affected importers;

Now therefore, in conformity with said decision it is

ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to the classification of predrilled studs under heading 4418, HTSUS, be and hereby is, denied; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, as to the classification of predrilled studs, be and hereby is, granted, upholding classification under subheading 4407.10.00, HTSUS; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to the effective date of an interpretive ruling issued pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c) with respect to the rights of all importers, be and hereby is, granted; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment as to the effective date of an interpretive ruling issued pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1625(e), be and hereby is, denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

American Bayridge Corp. v. United States
110 F. Supp. 2d 943 (Court of International Trade, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 Ct. Int'l Trade 18, 35 F. Supp. 2d 942, 1999 CIT 8, 23 C.I.T. 18, 21 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1192, 1999 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-bayridge-corp-v-united-states-cit-1999.