Legal Opinion
EM Industries, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided March 24, 1998No. Court No. 94-08-00478PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Introduction
Newman, Senior Judge:
This action concerns the proper tariff classification, and hence rate of duty, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) for “pearlescent pigments” imported by *157E.M. Industries, Inc., plaintiff in this action, from Germany in 1992-93. Two types of pearlescent pigments are involved: mica coated with titanium dioxide and mica coated with iron oxide.1
The mica-based pigment coated with titanium dioxide was classified by the Customs Service (“Customs”) under subheading 3206.10.00 HTSUS, as “pigments or…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- United States v. American Trucking AssociationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Lynteq, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Marubeni America Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Lonza, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Midwest of Cannon Falls, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Rollerblade, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Chevron Chemical Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1999
- Rollerblade, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2000
- Cargill, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2004
- Cummins Engine Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1999
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.