Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1988

Tomoegawa U.S.A., Inc. v. The United States

Tomoegawa U.S.A., Inc. v. The United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided December 2, 1988 · Markey, Newman, Mayer
861 F.2d 1275; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 16143; 1988 WL 126660 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Steven P. Florsheim, Grunfeld, Desider-io, Lebowitz & Silverman, New York City, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Robert B. Silverman., Michael T. Ambrosino, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office.

Tomoegawa U.S.A., Inc. v. The United States

Cases that cite this one

11 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

861 F.2d 1275

10 ITRD 2056

TOMOEGAWA U.S.A., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal No. 88-1354.

United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.

Dec. 2, 1988.

Appealed from: U.S. Court of International Trade; Re, Chief Judge.

Steven P. Florsheim, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman, New York City, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Robert B. Silverman.

Michael T. Ambrosino, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and NEWMAN and MAYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The judgment of the Court of International Trade, 681 F.Supp. 867 (1988), is affirmed on the basis of the court's opinion which we adopt, except insofar as it contemplates Dry Imaging Ink CP-7 and Toner for APECO 620. As to those articles, the judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings to determine the derivation and applicable duty. Costs to the government.

2

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

3

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

4

I respectfully disagree with the classification of these materials as photographic chemicals.

5

The toners used in electrostatic printing are neither photographic nor chemicals. They do not work by a chemical process; they undergo or induce no chemical change; they produce no chemical effect. They are totally unlike the "photographic chemicals" reasonably contemplated in the tariff schedules.

6

Electrostatic copying is a printing process whereby the ink powder is electrostatically attracted to the image on the paper. There is no light ("photo")-induced chemical change. Electro-static printing, using dry inks, does not convert the printing medium into a chemical agent.

7

Classification of these toners as printing inks or ink powders is consistent with their use and their composition. Thus I would reverse the decision of the Court of International Trade.

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