Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States (1982)

16 Citing cases

  1. Superior Wire, a Div. of Superior Prod. v. U.S.

    669 F. Supp. 472 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987)   Cited 9 times
    Indicating that Midwood has been cited with approval in Torrington and held not determinative in Uniroyal

    628 F. Supp. at 990. In Uniroyal v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 223-24, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1029 (1982) aff'd, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (addition of outer sole did not substantially transform shoe upper under marking laws), no percentage was specified, but the cost of the alleged transformation was deemed insignificant. 542 F. Supp. at 1029-30.

  2. Boltex Manufacturing Co., L.P. v. U.S.

    140 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)   Cited 4 times

    The producers' goods-consumers' goods distinction serves as a supplement to the court's analysis and conclusion based on the Gibson-Thomsen test of a new name, character and use. This reading of the Midwood decision is supported by several subsequent decisions of the Customs Court, the Court of International Trade, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 764 F.2d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing Midwood for its determination that forgings for flanges could enter the United States without country-of-origin markings because the imports were producers' goods while the finished flanges were consumers' goods); Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 226, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1031 (1982), aff'd, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (distinguishing the facts in Midwood from the facts before the court, without overruling the producers' goods-consumers' goods distinction); Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United States, 11 CIT 470, 477, 664 F. Supp. 535, 541(citing with approval the Midwood decision as support for its proposition that "[s]uch a change in the utility of the product is indicative of a substantial transformation"); Superior Wire v. United States, 11 CIT 608, 616, 669 F. Supp. 472, 479 (1987) (indicating that Midwood has been cited with approval in Torrington and held not determinative in Uniroyal). In support of its statement that Midwood would be decided differently today, and that Customs has therefore not acted irrationally, Defendant cites and discusses several judicial opinions wherein "numerous Judges in this Court and the Federal Circuit have also elected not to be bound by that particular criterion in making a decision regarding whether imported merchandise was

  3. National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States

    628 F. Supp. 978 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that imported orange juice concentrate "imparts the essential character" to the completed orange juice and thus was not substantially transformed

    In any case, a change in the name of the product is the weakest evidence of a substantial transformation. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff'd, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (fact that this imported product was called an "upper" and final product called a "shoe" did not affect the court's finding of no substantial transformation); United States v. International Paint Co., 35 CCPA 87, 93-94, C.A.D. 376 (1948) ("Under some circumstances a change in name would be wholly unimportant and equally so is a lack of change in name under circumstances such as [in this drawback case]."). Plaintiffs make much of the fact that the imported and retail products at issue in this case have distinct standards of identity under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.

  4. CPC International, Inc. v. United States

    971 F. Supp. 574 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)   Cited 5 times

    HRL 728557 published as C.S.D. 85-47, 19 Cust. Bull. No. 39 at 21 (Sept. 4, 1985). Citing United States v. Murray, 621 F.2d 1163, 1170 (1st Cir. 1980) and Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff'd, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and following the traditional Gibson-Thomsen substantial transformation criteria of change of name, character or use, the National Juice court sustained Customs' ruling holding that a party claiming that processing results in a substantial transformation must "demonstrate that the processing done in the United States substantially increases the value of the product or transforms the import so that it is no longer the essence of the final product." Id., 10 CIT at 60, 628 F. Supp. at 990.

  5. Belcrest Linens v. United States

    741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 11 times

    The government also argues that the trial court erred when it failed to utilize the "substantially transformed" test as developed under other areas of customs law in determining whether the imported pillowcases were products of China or Hong Kong. Although we decline to advance a definition of this term for all purposes, particularly because the implementing regulations under various tariff provisions define the term differently, it is clear that a "substantial transformation" occurs when as a result of a process an article emerges, having a distinctive name, character or use, in essence the definition of manufacture quoted above. See, e.g., Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 C.I.T. 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff'd per curiam 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778 (CCPA 1982); Midwood Industries, Inc. v. United States, 64 Cust.Ct. 499 (1970). Again, it is difficult to perceive the difference between this test and that used by the trial court, that there was a change in the appearance, character, identity and use of the involved merchandise.

  6. SDI Technologies, Inc. v. United States

    977 F. Supp. 1235 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that the purpose of the GSP not met by stereo rack systems claimed to be the product of Mexico. where complex manufacturing took place in China and the finishing which occurred in Mexico. — placing components in a wooden cabinet — required only a basic education and did not change the character of the product

    Id. Each case must be evaluated on its own particular set of facts to determine whether an article has been substantially transformed irrespective of the statute. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 224, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1029 (1982) (citations ommitted), aff'd, 1 Fed. Cir. (T) 21, 702 F.2d 1022 (1983); see F.F. Zuniga v. United States, ___ Fed. Cir. ___, ___, 996 F.2d 1203, 1206 (1993) (determining whether articles were substantially transformed "requires findings of fact by the trial court"). SDI claims that the goods satisfy the GSP's requirement that they be the "growth, product, or manufacture" of a BDC because the chassis, of Chinese origin, were substantially transformed into a different product in Mexico before they were exported to the United States because the chassis changed in name, character, and use. Legal Mem. Supp. Pl.'s Claims at 8, 11. This Court is unpersuaded by SDI's arguments, and finds that because neither the character nor the use of the chassis changed when it became a stereo rack system, the chassis did not undergo substantial transformation, The Court addresses each element in turn.

  7. Simod America Corp. v. U.S.

    693 F. Supp. 1172 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)   Cited 2 times

    Mr. Bailey, a former chairman of committees of the ASTM and the holder of many footwear patents, testified and explained that because of the presence of the "underfoot" the imported articles are not uppers. Merchandise similar to that in issue was the subject of judicial analysis in Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff'd, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In Uniroyal, the Customs Service denied importation of plaintiff's shoe uppers, which contained an attached bottom and resembled mocassins, because they lacked country of origin markings pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1304(a)(1982).

  8. Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. U.S.

    664 F. Supp. 535 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987)   Cited 19 times
    Rejecting essence test as not grounded in precedent

    These are (1) that name, character and use provide only part of the controlling test of whether the "essence" of the product has been altered, which may not be satisfied despite changes in name, character and use; and (2) even though changes have occurred which would ordinarily result in a finding of substantial transformation, a different result may be found in the context of an agreement designed to restrict imports, where the Court may apply different criteria requiring more substantial changes in the imported product. Defendant's suggestion that an "essence" test has displaced name, character and use is attributed to the Court's decisions in National Juice Products, supra, and Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff'd, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In National Juice Products, however, the Court specifically applied the criteria of name, character and use in determining that orange juice manufacturing concentrate is not substantially transformed in the process that converts the concentrate into frozen concentrated, or reconstituted, orange juice.

  9. CPC International, Inc. v. United States

    933 F. Supp. 1093 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)   Cited 6 times

    The courts have consistently followed the new "name, character and use" substantial transformation test of Gibson-Thomsen in determining whether imported goods must be marked in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1304(a). See e.g.: Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983), aff'g 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982); National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 308, 1992 WL 101006 (1992); Koru North America v. United States, 12 CIT 1120, 701 F. Supp. 229 (1988); Superior Wire v. United States, 11 CIT 608, 669 F. Supp. 472 (1987); Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United States, 11 CIT 470, 664 F. Supp. 535 (1987); National Juice Products Assoc. v. United States, 10 CIT 48, 628 F. Supp. 978 (1986); Carlson Furniture Indus. v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct. 474, C.D. 4126 (1970); Midwood Indus., Inc. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 499, C.D. 2046, 313 F. Supp. 951 (1970), appeal dismissed, 57 CCPA 141, (1970); and Grafton Spools, Ltd. v. United States, 45 Cust.Ct. 16, C.D. 2190 (1960). As observed in Tropicana Products, Inc. v. United States, 16 CIT 155, 159, 789 F. Supp. 1154, 1157 (1992), "[s]ubstantial transformation is a concept of major importance in administering the customs and trade laws."

  10. Uniroyal, Inc., v. United States

    702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that imported shoe uppers added to an outer sole in the United States were "the very essence of the finished shoe" and thus were not substantially transformed

    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.