TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Uniroyal, Inc. v. The United States

UNIROYAL, INC., Appellant, v. the UNITED STATES, Appellee

Uniroyal, Inc. v. The United States, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 23, 1983
Docket
No. 82-31
Judges
Rich, Davis, Nies
Citations
702 F.2d 10224 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 17021983 U.S. App. LEXIS 13572

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Uniroyal appeals the judgment of the Court of International Trade, 3 CIT -, 542 F.Supp. 1026 (1982), upholding the determination by the United States Customs Service that certain footwear uppers must be excluded from entry under § 304(a)(3)(H) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as. amended ( 19 U.S.C. § 1304 (a)(3)(H) (1976)). This statute requires that imported articles must be marked so as to indicate the country of origin to the ultimate purchaser in the United States. The case turns on the issue of who is the ultimate purchaser of the imported goods within the meaning of the statute.

Uniroyal imports footwear uppers, complete shoes except for the attachment of soles, and sells the imported goods to a U.S. manufacturer, Stride-Rite Co. The uppers are shipped to the United States in cartons marked “Made in Indonesia.” Stride-Rite performs the operations necessary to finish the shoes and sells them to retail establishments for resale to consumers. The finished shoes bear no marking with respect to foreign origin of the uppers.

The Court of International Trade held that Stride-Rite was not the ultimate purchaser within the meaning of § 304 since the operations performed in the United States did not substantially transform the identity of the uppers. We agree with the analysis by the court and, accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →
1984: 11986: 11987: 31988: 21990: 11992: 11995: 11996: 21997: 22000: 32016: 12018: 119842026peak 1987 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. CPC International, Inc. v. United States971 F. Supp. 574 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)
  2. National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States628 F. Supp. 978 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)
  3. Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United States664 F. Supp. 535 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987)
  4. Belcrest Linens v. The United States741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
  5. Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States116 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)
  6. Superior Wire, a Div. of Superior Products Co. v. United States669 F. Supp. 472 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987)

Most recent

  1. Bell Supply Co. v. United States348 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2018)
  2. Energizer Battery, Inc. v. United States2016 CIT 116, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1308
  3. Uniden America Corp. v. United States120 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)
  4. Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States116 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)
  5. Boltex Manufacturing Co. v. United States140 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)
  6. SDI Technologies Inc. v. United States977 F. Supp. 1235 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1982) 25

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list