Bauerhin Technologies Limited Partnership, and John v. Carr & Son Inc. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the “integral, constituent, or component part” test was not exclusive and that the “dedicated solely for use” test applied instead
• stating that “[t]he canopies in this case are dedicated solely for use with the child safety seats. They are neither designed nor sold to be used independently. Therefore, the canopies are properly considered parts under the HTSUS.”
• “an imported item dedicated solely for use with another article is a ‘part’ of that article within the meaning of HTSUS”
• \an imported item dedicated solely for use with another article is a `part' of that article within the meaning of HTSUS\
• “we begin our inquiry by examining the descriptions of the relevant headings, subheadings, and accompanying notes”
• “we begin our inquiry by examining the descriptions of the relevant headings, subheadings, and accompanying notes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).