Legal Opinion

Interocean Chemical & Minerals Corp. v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided May 31, 1989No. Court 86-10-01268PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MUSGRAVE, Judge.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is the importer of the merchandise in question, frozen crabmeat and crab claws. The merchandise was imported into the ports of Miami, Seattle and Boston. Plaintiff challenges the classification of the merchandise under item 114.15, Tariff Schedules of the United States (“TSUS”) which assesses duty at the rate of 7.5%. Plaintiff claims that the merchandise is properly classified under item 114.25 TSUS.

The two sections in question provide as follows:

“Shellfish, fresh, chilled, frozen, etc. (con.):

Crabs:

Crabmeat:

114.15 Fresh, chilled or frozen. 7.5% ad…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Schott Optical Glass, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
  2. Trans-Atlantic Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
  3. Rohm & Haas Company v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  4. United States v. Rembrandt Electronics, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
  5. Excelsior Import Associates, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kahrs International, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2011
  2. Central Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1996
  3. Interocean Chemical & Mineral Corporation v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
  4. Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API