Permagrain Products, Inc. v. The United States

791 F.2d 914, 7 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2487, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 20090
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedJune 4, 1986
DocketAppeal 86-555
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 791 F.2d 914 (Permagrain Products, Inc. v. The United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Permagrain Products, Inc. v. The United States, 791 F.2d 914, 7 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2487, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 20090 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Opinion

NIES, Circuit Judge.

Permagrain Products, Inc. appeals from the final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade in Case No. 81-12-01644, entered September 4, 1985, 623 F.Supp. 1246, which upheld the United States Customs Service’s classification of the subject merchandise under item 202.60 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS). We affirm.

OPINION

The imported merchandise was classified by Customs as “other hardwood flooring” under item 202.60 of the TSUS. Perma-grain challenged that classification, contending that the merchandise was properly classifiable as “hardwood lumber, rough, dressed or worked” under item 202.42 of the TSUS. The Court of International Trade, in a thorough opinion authored by Chief Judge Re, considered the extensive testimony and other evidence presented and held that Customs’ classification of the merchandise under item 202.60 of the TSUS was correct. Having considered Per-magrain’s arguments presented in the appeal, we are unpersuaded that the Court of International Trade committed any errors of law, or that any of its findings are clearly erroneous. See Daw Industries, Inc. v. United States, 714 F.2d 1140, 1142 (Fed.Cir.1983). We affirm on the basis of Chief Judge Re’s opinion.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Ludvig Svensson (U.S.) Inc. v. United States
62 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (Court of International Trade, 1999)
Chevron Chemical Co. v. United States
59 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (Court of International Trade, 1999)
American Bayridge Corp. v. United States
35 F. Supp. 2d 922 (Court of International Trade, 1998)
American Plywood Ass'n v. United States
17 Ct. Int'l Trade 613 (Court of International Trade, 1993)
Arthur J. Humphreys, Inc. v. The United States
973 F.2d 1554 (Federal Circuit, 1992)
Arthur J. Humphreys, Inc. v. United States
15 Ct. Int'l Trade 191 (Court of International Trade, 1991)
Palos v. United States
737 F. Supp. 1191 (Court of International Trade, 1990)
Apple Computer, Inc. v. United States
14 Ct. Int'l Trade 77 (Court of International Trade, 1990)
Teleflora Products, Inc. v. United States
13 Ct. Int'l Trade 839 (Court of International Trade, 1989)
American Hardboard Ass'n v. United States
12 Ct. Int'l Trade 714 (Court of International Trade, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
791 F.2d 914, 7 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2487, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 20090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/permagrain-products-inc-v-the-united-states-cafc-1986.