Legal Opinion
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided March 26, 2009No. 2008-1342PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge GAJRSA.
DYK, Circuit Judge.
In July 2003, Archer Daniels Midland Company (“ADM”) imported deodorizer distillate, a residue from the production of edible soybean oil. United States Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) classified the deodorizer distillate under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 3824.90.28 (“[cjhemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries ..., not elsewhere specified or included”), then subject to duty of 7.9% ad valorem. ADM…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Orlando Food Corp. v. StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Pillowtex Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Sigma-Tau Healthscience, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Storewall, LLC v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Kahrs International, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2009
- Well Luck Company, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- Energy East Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.