Legal Opinion

Aero Rubber Co. v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided May 14, 2019No. Slip Op. 19-57; Court No. 15-00174Published

1Opinion of the Court

Kelly, Judge:

This action concerns the classification of an assortment of molded silicone bands that are larger than wrist size and contain some form of printed wording or motif. Compl. ¶ 8, Sept. 15, 2015, ECF No. 8 ("Compl."); Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶¶ 2, 27, Dec. 26, 2017, ECF No. 52 ("Def.'s 56.3 Statement").1 Defendant, the United States, moves for summary judgment, requesting that the court find as a matter of law that Plaintiff's imports were properly classified within subheading 3926.90.99, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2013) ("HTSUS"),2 by…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Jarvis Clark Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  2. Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
  3. Simod America Corp. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
  4. Cummins Incorporated (Formerly Known as Cummins Engine Company) v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
  5. Airflow Technology, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008

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

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

Powered by the Exa API