Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
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
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- 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
- Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009