Mast Indus., Inc. v. The United States, 786 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Mast Indus., Inc. v. The United States, 786 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: International Home Textile, Inc. v. United States (cafc, 1998-09-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" International Home Textile, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mast Indus., Inc. v. United States, 9 C.I.T. 549 , 553 (1985), aff'd, 786 F.2d 1144 , 4 Fed.
discussed Cited "see" International Home Textile, Inc. v. United States
Ct. Intl. Trade · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mast Industries, Inc. v. United States, 9 CIT 549 , 552 (1985), aff’d, 786 F.2d 1144 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mast Industries, Inc.
v.
The United States
86-676.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Apr 1, 1986.
786 F.2d 1144
✓ 9 CIT 549
Published

786 F.2d 1144

7 ITRD 2365, 4 Fed. Cir. (T) 79

MAST INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Appellant.

Appeal No. 86-676.

United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.

April 1, 1986.

Veronica A. Perry, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, New York City, argued, for appellant. With her on brief, were Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., David Cohen, Director and Joseph I. Liebman, Atty. in Charge, Intern. Trade Field Office.

Michael P. Maxwell, Greenfield, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman, New York City, argued, for appellee. With him on brief, was Steven P. Florsheim.

Before BALDWIN, NIES, and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.

BALDWIN, Circuit Judge.

1

This appeal is from a decision of the United States Court of International Trade holding that a sleepshirt was designed, manufactured, marketed, and used as nightwear, and an order directing the U.S. Customs Service to permit entry of the merchandise under Item 384.5226 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States.

2

Appellant's arguments are adequately treated in the lower court's opinion No. 85-114, dated October 28, 1985. We affirm on the basis of that opinion.

3

AFFIRMED.