Uniroyal, Inc. v. The United States

702 F.2d 1022, 4 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1702, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 13572
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedMarch 23, 1983
DocketAppeal 82-31
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 702 F.2d 1022 (Uniroyal, 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
Uniroyal, Inc. v. The United States, 702 F.2d 1022, 4 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1702, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 13572 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Uniroyal appeals the judgment of the Court of International Trade, 3 CIT -, 542 F.Supp. 1026 (1982), upholding the determination by the United States Customs Service that certain footwear uppers must be excluded from entry under § 304(a)(3)(H) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as. amended (19 U.S.C. § 1304(a)(3)(H) (1976)). This statute requires that imported articles must be marked so as to indicate the country of origin to the ultimate purchaser in the United States. The case turns on the issue of who is the ultimate purchaser of the imported goods within the meaning of the statute.

Uniroyal imports footwear uppers, complete shoes except for the attachment of soles, and sells the imported goods to a U.S. manufacturer, Stride-Rite Co. The uppers are shipped to the United States in cartons marked “Made in Indonesia.” Stride-Rite performs the operations necessary to finish the shoes and sells them to retail establishments for resale to consumers. The finished shoes bear no marking with respect to foreign origin of the uppers.

The Court of International Trade held that Stride-Rite was not the ultimate purchaser within the meaning of § 304 since the operations performed in the United States did not substantially transform the identity of the uppers. We agree with the analysis by the court and, accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Bell Supply Co. v. United States
348 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (Court of International Trade, 2018)
Energizer Battery, Inc. v. United States
190 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (Court of International Trade, 2016)
Uniden America Corp. v. United States
120 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (Court of International Trade, 2000)
Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States
116 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Court of International Trade, 2000)
Boltex Manufacturing Co. v. United States
140 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Court of International Trade, 2000)
SDI Technologies Inc. v. United States
21 Ct. Int'l Trade 895 (Court of International Trade, 1997)
CPC International, Inc. v. United States
933 F. Supp. 1093 (Court of International Trade, 1996)
Ran-Paige Co. v. United States
40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,903 (Federal Claims, 1996)
In re Property Seized from ICS Cutting Tools, Inc.
163 F.R.D. 292 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1995)
National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States
16 Ct. Int'l Trade 308 (Court of International Trade, 1992)
Simod America Corp. v. United States
693 F. Supp. 1172 (Court of International Trade, 1988)
Madison Galleries, Ltd. v. United States
688 F. Supp. 1544 (Court of International Trade, 1988)
Superior Wire, a Div. of Superior Products Co. v. United States
669 F. Supp. 472 (Court of International Trade, 1987)
Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United States
664 F. Supp. 535 (Court of International Trade, 1987)
Trend Export Funding Corp. v. Foreign Credit Insurance
670 F. Supp. 480 (S.D. New York, 1987)
National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States
628 F. Supp. 978 (Court of International Trade, 1986)
Belcrest Linens v. The United States
741 F.2d 1368 (Federal Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
702 F.2d 1022, 4 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1702, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 13572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uniroyal-inc-v-the-united-states-cafc-1983.