Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Commissioner of Customs V Hypermix Feeds Corporation: IS S U E F A C T S C M O 2 7 - 2 0 0 3

    Uploaded by

    Reyshanne Joy B Marquez
    12 views1 page
    This dispute involves a customs classification of an animal feed product imported by Hypermix Feeds Corporation. The Commissioner of Customs classified the product under subheading 2309.90.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, assessing duties of 6.4%. Hypermix Feeds Corporation protested, claiming the proper classification was under subheading 2309.90.95 with a duty rate of 3.4%. The Court of International Trade reviewed the classification and ruled in favor of Hypermix Feeds Corporation.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    2.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This dispute involves a customs classification of an animal feed product imported by Hypermix Feeds Corporation. The Commissioner of Customs classified the product under subheading 2309.90.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, assessing duties of 6.4%. Hypermix Feeds Corporation protested, claiming the proper classification was under subheading 2309.90.95 with a duty rate of 3.4%. The Court of International Trade reviewed the classification and ruled in favor of Hypermix Feeds Corporation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views1 page

    Commissioner of Customs V Hypermix Feeds Corporation: IS S U E F A C T S C M O 2 7 - 2 0 0 3

    Uploaded by

    Reyshanne Joy B Marquez
    This dispute involves a customs classification of an animal feed product imported by Hypermix Feeds Corporation. The Commissioner of Customs classified the product under subheading 2309.90.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, assessing duties of 6.4%. Hypermix Feeds Corporation protested, claiming the proper classification was under subheading 2309.90.95 with a duty rate of 3.4%. The Court of International Trade reviewed the classification and ruled in favor of Hypermix Feeds Corporation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Commissioner of Customs v

    Hypermix Feeds
    Corporation
    IE
    U
    S
    W O
    N W M
    eC
    th
    rn
    o Orn
    etiop27-03fhm teivasrdm
    nu?qoC
    hfW
    R
    A rh
    etnM
    ofcu
    Cireqh27-03m
    tO
    nslo
    acfC
    p
    F A C T S
    )N
    1 em
    v
    orbtinC
    ,pm
    3
    0
    2
    7riso
    efC
    n td
    u
    C M O 3
    -0
    7
    2
    stom
    u
    (C M em
    uo
    d
    n
    raO
    e).2
    rd
    U thnm
    em uo
    d
    n ,riff
    ram tasw
    foerd
    u
    p g)Icolasifi
    in edt:achm esb) Country of origin,cfo
    p ed%
    clasifiitff
    lb
    u
    w
    D
    P n
    csp
    h
    )T
    rae.3
    g
    d
    ,fo
    %
    a7
    eg
    rd
    )A
    4
    .m
    thaferisu
    n
    o cC
    M
    O
    )M
    .5
    ñ
    P
    L
    u
    C
    T
    g
    h
    w
    R led
    aifcly tfi
    d
    n
    o
    resp
    -0
    7
    2
    O3w
    -0
    7
    2
    edafo
    isulw
    thein
    gm
    tep
    d
    an
    ,th
    m
    A
    )R
    .6
    C
    L
    fP
    y
    v
    U
    h
    sw
    rg
    lico
    b
    utm
    fi
    en
    ib
    ,vy1
    x
    n rp
    sjcafg
    b
    ld
    u
    o
    w
    %ff
    e7
    3saryactio
    .8 co
    ld
    C
    q
    R
    M)P 2fi
    jb
    v
    :C
    g
    h
    To
    h
    “w
    sm
    D.1
    ,S
    3
    6
    u
    (R
    ely ”)w
    frd
    n tin
    lep
    pM
    O
    g
    3
    -0
    7
    2
    v
    w
    fp
    so
    clim
    h
    .T
    4
    re,d
    atu
    n
    ,because the Bureau of Customs had y
    tu
    rem
    p
    d
    an
    et to examineredy,fi lfcspondt’u.9)R
    leithproansw
    C
    m T
    D E C IS O N
    NO
    •

    t’gfi
    d
    n
    o
    lresp
    tv
    rT
    p
    d
    M
    fC
    co
    an
    eisu
    h c7
    0O
    L
    U
    E
    :F
    A
    Rff
    -1
    P
    9
    S
    3
    q
    w
    m
    )Ib ,aly
    .(2 ig
    x
    albe valid unless the proposed rates sha
    sh
    ll have been publishedileast2 fi
    ciu
    g
    p
    n
    rh
    fo
    b
    k
    w

    You might also like