Legal Opinion
Belcrest Linens v. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided August 21, 1984No. 84-734PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KASHIWA, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of International Trade, 573 F.Supp. 1149 holding that the imported merchandise, pillowcases, was a “product of Hong Kong” subject to an assessed duty rate of 34% ad valorem and not a “product of” the Peoples Republic of China which would cause the merchandise to be assessed with 90% ad valorem duty. We affirm.
Background
The parties stipulated to the following facts. The imported merchandise consists of pillowcases shipped from Hong Kong to the United States. The pillowcases were produced from percale, a cotton fabric, woven…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Uniroyal, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1982
- Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Uniroyal, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Avins Industrial Products Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- National Juice Products Ass'n v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1986
- The Torrington Company v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1987
- Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2000
- Koru North America v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1988
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.