Airflow Technology, Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the court “may rely upon its own understanding of terms used, and may consult standard lexicographic and scientific authorities”
• stating that “[t]he [G]overnment did not dispute that Sperifilt is prima facie classifiable under heading 5603”
• “[W]hen the language of the tariff provision is unambiguous and the Explanatory Notes contradictory, ‘we do not afford [the Explanatory Notes] any weight.’ ”
• “Even ‘where a general term follows one expressly set forth specific term,’ . . . application of the rule is appropriate.”
• “[W]hen the language of the tariff .provision is unambiguous and the Explanatory. Notes contradictory, we do not afford [the Explanatory Notes] any weight.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).