Opinion · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
International Spring Mfg. Co. v. United States
Int’l Spring Mfg. Co. v. United States, 641 F.2d 875 (C.C.P.A. 1981)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1981-02-19
- Topic
- litigation
Nies, Judge. This appeal is from the judgment of the U.S. Customs Court (hereinafter the U.S. Court of International Trade), 496 F. Supp. 279, 85 Cust.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed International Spring Mfg. Co. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 1 opinion
INTERNATIONAL SPRING MFG. v. UNITED STATES,641 F.2d 875(C.C.P.A. 1981)
INTERNATIONAL SPRING MFG. CO., APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE.
Customs Appeal No. 80-37.
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
February 19, 1981.
Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., David M. Cohen, New York City, Director, Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in charge, Robert H. White, New York City, of counsel, for appellee.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER, and NIES, Associate Judges.
[2] OPINION
[3] We agree with the decision of the Court of International Trade that the non self-propelled trailers for which the imported springs are suitable are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of item 652.84. Accordingly, weaffirmthe judgment of the court and adopt the opinion below as our own.Page 292
- The relevant provisions of the TSUS read:
↩Schedule 6, Part 3, Subpart F. — Miscellaneous Metal Products
Springs and leaves for springs, of base metal:
[Claimed]
652.84 Suitable for motor vehicle suspension ................. 4% ad val.* * *[Classified]
652.88 Other ..................... 9.5% ad val.