Notes of Decisions
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
· cites it 8× “Since ruling letters respond to transactions of the moment, they are not subject to notice and comment before being issued, may be published but need only be made "available for public inspection," 19 U. S. C. § 1625 (a), and, at the time this action arose, could be modified…”
California Indus. Prods., Inc. v. United States, 436 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 34× “Such proceedings were required under 19 U.S.C. § 1625 (c), the court determined, because Customs’ denial of CIP’s claims represented, in the words of that statute, a modification of the favorable “treatment previously accorded by [Customs] to substantially identical transactions.”
Am. Fiber & Finishing, Inc. v. United States, 2015 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
· cites it 36× “Plaintiff asserts that Customs violated 19 U.S.C. § 1625 (c)(2) by making an interpretive ruling or decision modifying or revoking a previously accorded treatment of AFF’s goods, reclassifying and rate-advancing them, without the statutorily required notice and comment.”
Motorola, Inc. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
· cites it 35× “Customs’ Failure to Publish HQ 961050 in the Customs Bulletin Did Not Violate 19 U.S.C. § 1625 (c) A. Statutory Background Section 1625 of Title 19 of the United States Code sets forth certain measures Customs must take with respect to interpretive rulings and decisions.”
California Indus. Prods., Inc. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
· cites it 37× “HI Arguments Plaintiff argues that Customs’ interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1625 (c)(2) and the Customs Modification Act (“Mod Act”) is contrary to the law.”
Int'l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
· cites it 15× “5 Plaintiff requested — among other things — a declaratory judgment that the Notice of Action is null and void because Customs failed to follow its own administrative procedures by revoking or modifying ICP’s ruling other than pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1625 (e) (2000). 6 Parties’…”
Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. United States, 69 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).
· cites it 24× “In this case, the movants stipulated to the following facts: (1) Customs issued certain HQ rulings, as enumerated in the pleadings, that have not been revoked, rescinded, amended or noted as a change of practice or position pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1625 (a) and 19 C.F.R. § 177.”
S. Shrimp All. v. United States, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).
· cites it 29× “For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss and grants Defendant-Intervenors’ motion to dismiss, except that the court denies Defendant-Intervenors’ motion with respect to the sole claim that Defendants do not move to dismiss; that *1340 claim…”
Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
· cites it 13× “Plaintiff argues that the facts stipulated by the parties require a finding that Customs violated 19 U.S.C. § 1625 (c)(2), by failing to engage in a notice-and-comment process prior to issuing a ruling which reversed Customs’ earlier treatment of 69 similar entries as eligible…”
Am. Bayridge Corp. v. United States, 35 F. Supp. 2d 922 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
· cites it 26× “18 and the failure to provide a sixty day grace period to third party importers, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1625 (c). National Lumber and Bldg.”
Int'l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 878 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
· cites it 24× “Having determined that jurisdiction under § 1581® was proper, this Court proceeded to grant a motion by ICP for judgment on the agency record, declaring that the Notice of Action was null and void because it was a “decision” that revoked the Ruling Letter without following the…”
Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 403 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
· cites it 13× “HQ 965280 denied Forest Labs’ protest stating that “a clerical error is exempted from the notice, publication, and comment procedures otherwise required for modifications and/or revocations in 19 U.S.C. § 1625 (c).” See id. Subsequently, Forest Labs filed the present action.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c) — 3 cases
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
“Since ruling letters respond to transactions of the moment, they are not subject to notice and comment before being issued, may be published but need only be made "available for public inspection," 19 U. S. C. § 1625 (a), and, at the time this action arose, could be modified…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)(2) — 1 case
Motorola, Inc. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
“Customs’ Failure to Publish HQ 961050 in the Customs Bulletin Did Not Violate 19 U.S.C. § 1625 (c) A. Statutory Background Section 1625 of Title 19 of the United States Code sets forth certain measures Customs must take with respect to interpretive rulings and decisions.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.