翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States v. General Dynamics Corp.
・ United States v. General Electric Co.
・ United States v. Georgia
・ United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co.
・ United States v. Gilmore
・ United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.
・ United States v. GlaxoSmithKline
・ United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
・ United States v. Google Inc.
・ United States v. Gotcher
・ United States v. Gouveia
・ United States v. Graham
・ United States v. Grimaud
・ United States v. Grubbs
・ United States v. Guest
United States v. Haggar Apparel Co.
・ United States v. Hamilton
・ United States v. Handley
・ United States v. Harris
・ United States v. Harris (tax case)
・ United States v. Harriss
・ United States v. Hasan K. Akbar
・ United States v. Hatch
・ United States v. Hatter
・ United States v. Hayes
・ United States v. Heirs of De Haro
・ United States v. Holmes
・ United States v. Hooe
・ United States v. Hubbard
・ United States v. Hubbell


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v. Haggar Apparel Co. : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v. Haggar Apparel Co.

''United States v. Haggar Apparel Co.'', is a United States Supreme Court holding that ''Chevron deference'' is appropriate for regulations issued by Customs on behalf of the Treasury. The statutes authorizing customs classification regulations were found consistent with the usual rule that regulations of an administering agency warrant judicial deference; and nothing in the regulation in question persuaded the Court that the Customs and Border Patrol intended the regulation to have some lesser force and effect. The statutory scheme did not support the importer's argument that the regulation only applied to customs officers themselves as opposed to the adjudication of importers' refund suits in the Court of International Trade. The Customs Service (which is within the US Treasury Department) is charged with fixing duties applicable to imported goods under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
==Facts==
Haggar Apparel Co., the respondent, designs, manufactures, and markets apparel for men. The matter arose from a refund proceeding for duties imposed on men's trousers shipped by Haggar to the United States from an assembly plant it controlled in Mexico. The fabric had been cut in the United States and then shipped to Mexico, along with the thread, buttons, and zippers necessary to complete the garments. There the trousers were sewn and reshipped to the United States. If that had been the full extent of it, there would not have been a dispute, for if there were mere assembly without other steps, all agree the imported garments would have been eligible for the duty exemption Haggar claimed.〔United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., (526 U.S. 380 ), 384〕
The Government claimed that the trousers were permapressed in Mexico. This process involved baking, which the Customs Service claimed was a process in addition to assembly, and as such denied Haggar a duty exemption. Haggar claimed the baking was simply part of the assembly process, or, in the words of the controlling statute, an "operation incidental to the assembly process."〔Subheading 9802.00.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 19 U.S.C. 1202.〕 Haggar's claim was difficult because Customs had issued an administrative regulation that deemed all permapressing operations as an additional step in manufacture, not part of assembly. The regulation had been adopted in 1975 by the Commissioner of Customs upon approval by the Treasury Department, after notice-and-comment rulemaking.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v. Haggar Apparel Co.」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.