Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1989

Texas Apparel Co. v. The United States

Texas Apparel Co. v. The United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided August 15, 1989 · Markey, Mayer, Michel, Per Curiam
883 F.2d 66; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 12026; 1989 WL 91184 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

S. Richard Shostak, Stein Shostak Shos-tak & O’Hara, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellant., Kenneth N. Wolf, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept, of Justice, New York City, argued, for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Joseph I. Liebman, Atty. in Charge, Intern. Trade Field Office., James A. Geraghty, Donohue & Dono-hue, New York City, was on the brief for amicus curiae, Aris Isotoner, Inc.

Texas Apparel Co. v. The United States

Cases that cite this one

6 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

PER CURIAM.

The United States Court of International Trade, in Texas Apparel Co. v. United States, 698 F.Supp. 932 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), held that the cost or value of sewing machines “used in the production of the imported merchandise,” including their repair parts and the cost of repairs, was properly included by the United States Cus *67 toms Service in the computed value of imported men’s, women’s, and boys’ jeans as an “assist” under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(h)(l)(A)(ii) (1982). Texas Apparel Co. has shown no error in Chief Judge Re’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis which specifically, seriatim, and correctly disposes of each of appellant’s arguments. Accordingly, that decision of the Court of International Trade, dated October 25, 1988, is

AFFIRMED.

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