From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Uniroyal, Inc., v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Mar 23, 1983
702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

Summary

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

Summary of this case from Uniden America Corporation v. U.S.

Opinion

Appeal No. 82-31.

March 23, 1983.

Andrew P. Vance, New York City, for appellant.

Barbara M. Epstein, New York City, argued for U.S. With her on the brief were J. Paul McGrath, David M. Cohen and Joseph I. Liebman, New York City.

Lauren R. Howard and David L. Dick, of Washington, D.C., were on the brief for amicus curiae Footwear Industries of America, Inc.

Appeal from the Court of International Trade.

Before RICH, DAVIS and NIES, Circuit Judges.


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.


Summaries of

Uniroyal, Inc., v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Mar 23, 1983
702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

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

Summary of this case from Uniden America Corporation v. U.S.

distinguishing the facts in Midwood from the facts before the court, without overruling the producers' goods-consumers' goods distinction

Summary of this case from Boltex Manufacturing Co., L.P. v. U.S.
Case details for

Uniroyal, Inc., v. United States

Case Details

Full title:UNIROYAL, INC., APPELLANT, v. THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEE

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Date published: Mar 23, 1983

Citations

702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

Citing Cases

CPC International, Inc. v. United States

HRL 728557 published as C.S.D. 85-47, 19 Cust. Bull. No. 39 at 21 (Sept. 4, 1985). Citing United States v.…

National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States

In any case, a change in the name of the product is the weakest evidence of a substantial transformation. See…