United States Federal Circuit

Because section 9802.00.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule unambiguously provides that painting is an operation incidental to assembly, Customs' regulation distinguishing painting based on its preservative or decorative purpose is invalid. Court of International Trade erred in applying this invalid regulation to deny plaintiff its partial duty exemption for its top-coat painting operation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/18/2004
• Published 03/18/2004

Judges

• PROST, Circuit Judge., Before CLEVENGER, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Lawrence M. Friedman,Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, of Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant.   With him on the brief was Harvey Karlovac., Richard H. Abbey, Miller & Chevalier Chartered, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.  With him on the brief was Michael T. Brady.


• For Appellees:
  
• Saul Davis, Senor Trial Counsel, International Trade Field Office, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, the United States Department of Justice, of New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee.   With him on the brief were Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Associate Attorney General;  and David M. Cohen, Director;  of the United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC;  and John J. Mahon, Acting Attorney in Charge;  and Aimee Lee, Attorney, International Trade Field Office.   Of counsel on the brief was Karen P. Binder, Attorney, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, of New York, NY.