Legal Opinion

Ameliotex, Inc. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 10, 1977No. 77-10PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Millek, Judge.

This appeal is from the judgment of the United States Customs Court, 77 Cust. Ct. 72, C.D. 4673, 426 F. Supp. 556 (1976), holding that certain elastomeric fibers known as “Sarlane” were properly classified as monofilaments under items 309.03 or 309.06, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), as modified by T.D. 68-9, depending on the denier of the fiber, rather than grouped filaments under item 309.31, as claimed by appellant. We affirm.

Background,

Schedule 3, Part 1, TSUS, covers, among other things, textile fibers. Subpart E provides in pertinent part:

Subpart E Headnotes:

3…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Platt v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Arturo B. SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the TEXAS COMMISSION ON ALCOHOLISM, an Agency of the State of Texas, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
  3. Ameliotex, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1976
  4. Barnebey-Cheney Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
  5. E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Phone-Mate, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1988
  2. Schott Optical Glass, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979
  3. NEC America, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1984
  4. Permagrain Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1985
  5. S.G.B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1979

22 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