Legal Opinion

Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided April 11, 2008No. Slip Op. 08-40; Court 05-00592PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WALLACH, Judge.

I

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Archer Daniels Midland Company’s (“ADM”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff ADM’s Response and Cross-Motion. The United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) classified entries of “deodorizer distillate” in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 3824.90.28 at 7.9% ad valorem. Plaintiff challenges the classification and contends that a 2002 amendment to Heading 3824 renders deodorizer…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
  5. Universal Electronics Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
  2. Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API