Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1986

Permagrain Products, Inc. v. The United States

Permagrain Products, Inc. v. The United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided June 4, 1986 · Davis, Nies, Swygert
791 F.2d 914; 7 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2487; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 20090 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Craig E. Ziegler, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., argued for appellant., Joseph I. Liebman, Atty. in Charge, Intern. Trade Field Office, Dept, of Justice, New York City, argued for appellee. With him on brief were Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, and Judith M. Barzilay.

Permagrain Products, Inc. v. The United States

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

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

NIES, Circuit Judge.

Permagrain Products, Inc. appeals from the final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade in Case No. 81-12-01644, entered September 4, 1985, 623 F.Supp. 1246, which upheld the United States Customs Service’s classification of the subject merchandise under item 202.60 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS). We affirm.

OPINION

The imported merchandise was classified by Customs as “other hardwood flooring” under item 202.60 of the TSUS. Perma-grain challenged that classification, contending that the merchandise was properly classifiable as “hardwood lumber, rough, dressed or worked” under item 202.42 of the TSUS. The Court of International Trade, in a thorough opinion authored by Chief Judge Re, considered the extensive testimony and other evidence presented and held that Customs’ classification of the merchandise under item 202.60 of the TSUS was correct. Having considered Per-magrain’s arguments presented in the appeal, we are unpersuaded that the Court of International Trade committed any errors of law, or that any of its findings are clearly erroneous. See Daw Industries, Inc. v. United States, 714 F.2d 1140, 1142 (Fed.Cir. 1983). We affirm on the basis of Chief Judge Re’s opinion.

AFFIRMED.

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