Crystal Clear Industries v. U.S., 94-1245
| Decision Date | 09 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1245,94-1245 |
| Citation | 44 F.3d 1001 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
| Parties | CRYSTAL CLEAR INDUSTRIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. |
Steven P. Florsheim, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman, New York City, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
John J. Mahon, Asst. Branch Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Department of Justice, New York City, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, Intern. Trade Field Office. Also on the brief was Mark D. Nackman, Office of the Asst. Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs Service, of counsel.
Before ARCHER, Chief Judge, MAYER and PLAGER, Circuit Judges.
Crystal Clear Industries ("Crystal Clear") appeals the January 28, 1994, judgment of the Court of International Trade, Crystal Clear Indus. v. United States, 843 F.Supp. 721 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994), which upheld the Customs Service's classification of certain glassware gift boxes along with the glassware they contained. The Customs Service classified the boxes under item 546.60 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States ("TSUS"), or subheadings 7013.21.10, 7013.29.20, 7013.39.20, and 9405.50.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States ("HTSUS"), and not as "[b]oxes of paper, of paperboard, of papier-mache, or of any combination thereof" under TSUS item 256.54, or as "[c]artons, boxes and cases, of corrugated paper or paperboard" under HTSUS subheading 4819.10.00. Duties were assessed on the glassware classified under HTSUS subheading 9405.50.40 at the column 2 rate of 45% ad valorem; duties were assessed on the remaining glassware at the column 2 rate of 60% ad valorem.
The items, imported during the years 1988 through 1990, are decorated cardboard boxes made in column 1 (most-favored) nations, which are imported containing glassware made in Eastern European column 2 nations. Crystal Clear argues that the Court of International Trade erred in finding that the boxes were the "usual" and "normal" packing for glassware under TSUS General Headnote 6(b) or under HTSUS General Rule of Interpretation 5(b). Second, Crystal Clear argues that, under TSUS General Headnote 6(b), those boxes that were not necessary to make the items seaworthy (i.e., those that were double-boxed) are not dutiable with the glassware. Third, for those items imported after the effective date of the HTSUS, Crystal Clear argues that the language of HTSUS General Rule of Interpretation 5(b) requires only that the boxes be classified with the glassware, not that they be dutiable at the same rate as the glassware. Crystal Clear argues in the alternative that the boxes are not dutiable at the column 2 rate because they never entered the commerce of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anval Nyby Powder AB v. US
...U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)." Crystal Clear Indus. v. United States, 44 F.3d 1001, 1002 n. * Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cited Chevron's two-step analysis in a valuation case. Goodman......
-
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. U.S.
...v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)." Crystal Clear Industries v. United States, 13 Fed. Cir. (T) ___, ___, 44 F.3d 1001, 1003 n.* 6. Intel Singapore, Ltd. v. United States, 14 Fed. Cir. (T) ___, ___, 83 F.3d 1416, 1417 (1996); acc......
-
Clarendon Marketing, Inc. v. U.S., Slip Op. 97-7.
...indulgence afforded to an agency's discretionary activities. Crystal Clear Industries v. United States, 13 Fed. Cir. (T) ___, ___ n.*, 44 F.3d 1001, 1003 n.* (1995) ("Our agreement with the opinion of the CIT does not extend to the suggestion that a routine classification dispute is entitle......
-
Rollerblade, Inc. v. U.S., 96-1397
...similarly fails. We have specifically held that Chevron deference does not apply to routine classification cases. Crystal Clear Indus. v. United States, 44 F.3d 1001, 1003 n. * (Fed.Cir.1995). We also agree with the line of cases from the Court of International Trade that hold that the Cour......