Legal Opinion

Bauerhin Technologies Ltd. Partnership v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided December 26, 1995No. Slip Op. 95-206. Court No. 94-05-00294PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION

WALLACH, Judge:

I

INTRODUCTION

In this action, Bauerhin Technologies Limited and John V. Carr & Son, Inc., (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Bauerhin”) challenge classification by Customs of imported 1 padded inserts for infant ear seats or swings as items of bedding under subheading 9404.90.20 HTSUS 2 , and of cloth canopies for those seats and swings as other made up textile articles under subheading 6307.90.94 HTSUS.

Bauerhin argues that Customs erred and that both types of imports should be classified as parts of automobile seats under subheading 9401.90.10, or parts of other…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Jarvis Clark Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  2. Jarvis Clark Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  3. Sports Graphics, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
  4. E.M. Chemicals v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
  5. Medline Industries, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bauerhin Technologies Limited Partnership, and John v. Carr & Son Inc. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
  2. United States v. RicciUnited States Court of International Trade · 1997
  3. David W. Shenk & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1997
  4. United States v. RicciUnited States Court of International Trade · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API