U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1985

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided February 1, 1985 · Nies

753 F.2d 1061 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

William Brashares, Cladouhos & Bras-hares, Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Harry W. Cladouhos, Paul M. Laurenza and Mari-Anne Pisarri, Washington, D.C., of counsel., Joseph S. Kaplan & John B. Pellegrini, Baskin & Steingut, P.C., of New York City, of counsel., William A. Plourde, Jr. and David D. Laufer, Torrence, Cal., of counsel., Saul Davis, Dept. of Justice, of New York City, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., David M. Cohen, Director, Joseph I. Lieb-man, Atty. in Charge International Trade Field Office, and Michael P. Maxwell, New York City.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

NEC America, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of International Trade 1987)
Terumo Corp. v. United States (United States Court of International Trade 1986)
W.Y. Moberly, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of International Trade 1986)
Pharmacia Fine Chemicals, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of International Trade 1985)
Mast Industries, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of International Trade 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

NIES, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States Court of International Trade sustaining the classification of certain cab chassis, imported from Japan from January 1980 to July 1981, under item 692.02 of the Tariff Schedules of the. United States (TSUS).

The issues on appeal were thoroughly treated in the trial court’s opinion reported at 7 CIT—, 585 F.Supp. 649 (1984). Contrary to appellant’s argument, Daisy-Heddon, Div. Victor Comptometer Corp. v. United States, 600 F.2d 799, 66 CCPA 97 (1979) is the most pertinent precedent and leads us also to conclude that the articles in question fall within the scope of item 692.-02 (TS'US) as unfinished automobile trucks and not within either item 692.20 (TSUS) as automobile truck chassis or item 692.10 (TSUS) as other automobile trucks. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Senior Judge Maletz’s opinion.

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.