NORTH AMERICAN FOREIGN TRADING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the Court of International Trade's judgment that imported LCD digital alarm/melody watches were properly classified under item 688.36 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States and not eligible for duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences.
The appeal concerned imported LCD digital alarm and/or melody watches. The Court of International Trade held they were properly classified under item …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tariff Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from the judgment of the United States Court of International Trade holding that certain imported LCD digital alarm and/or melody watches were properly classified under item 688.36 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States and not eligible for duty-free treatment under 19 U.S.C. § 2463(c)(1)(B) and (C). The decision is affirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Court of International Trade, North American Foreign Trading Corp. v. United States, 600 F.Supp. 226 (1984), reh’g denied, 607 F.Supp. 1471 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1985). OPINION
This is not a case of retroactive imposition of duty, because the goods in question had not been finally liquidated. Executive Order 12371 by its terms applied only to watches that had not been liquidated prior to the Order. 47 Fed.Reg. 30449, 30450 (1982). No vested right to a particular classification or rate of duty or preference is acquired at the time of importation. Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 318, 53 S.Ct. 350, 359, 77 L.Ed. 796 (1932); United States v. Yoshida International, Inc., 526 F. 2d 560, 580 (CCPA 1975).
In the case before us, the watches were not eligible for the benefits of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) at the time of their importation, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 2463(c)(1)(B) and (C). The Court of International Trade correctly held that the duty classification resulting from the decision in United States v. Texas Instruments, 673 F. 2d 1375 (CCPA 1982), did not affect the GSP treatment of the watches, whether of mechanical or solid state movement. Any doubt in this regard was clarified by Executive Order 12371.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arjay Assocs., Inc. v. Bush, 891 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
-
Int'l Labor Rights Educ. & Research Fund v. Bush, 954 F.2d 745 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
Authorities Cited
- Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1933)
- The United States v. Yoshida Int'l, Inc., 526 F.2d 560 (C.C.P.A. 1975)
- The United States v. Tex. Instruments Inc., 673 F.2d 1375 (C.C.P.A. 1982)