The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . See Ohio Rev.Code § § 709.04, 709.05, and 709.06. . . .
. . . Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs” estimated that the total monthly payment for the Figards would be $709.05 . . .
. . . were properly classified as medical instruments (specifically as ophthalmic instruments) under item 709.05 . . .
. . . It was classified under Item 709.05 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (“TSUS”), a provision . . . The issue before us is, therefore, whether the “microscope” exclusion in the superior heading to Item 709.05 . . .
. . . It was classified under Item 709.05 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (“TSUS”), a provision . . . The issue before us is, therefore, whether the “microscope” exclusion in the superior heading to Item 709.05 . . .
. . . of $1,175.49 plus $73.98 for costs of suit; interest on the judgment as of the date of petition was $709.05 . . .
. . . Binocular loupes for eye examinations ........... 709.05 Other .................25% ad val. . . . Item 709.05 covers all other optical instruments and appliances. . . . The existing rate of duty for such articles is reflected in item 709.05. [Emphasis added.] . . . Adjacent proposed item 709.05 is found reference to paragraph 228(a). . . . Item 709.05 is acknowledged to be more specific. . . .
. . . States Court of International Trade sustaining the classification of Slit-Lamp Microscopes under item 709.05 . . . Item 709.05 cover all other optical instruments and appliances. . . . The existing rate of duty for such articles is reflected in item 709.05. [Emphasis added.] . . . Adjacent proposed item 709.05 is found reference to paragraph 228(a). . . . Item 709.05 is acknowledged to be more specific. . . .
. . . Binocular loupes for eye examinations................ 709.05 Other................................... . . . The predecessor statutory provisions to item 709.05, TSUS, and item 708.73, TSUS, were paragraphs 228 . . . Items 709.01 through 709.05 cover optical instruments and appliances. . . . Item 709.05 covers all other optical instruments and appliances. . . . The existing rate of duty for such articles is reflected in item 709.05. . . .
. . . Upon liquidation the subject merchandise was classified under item 709.05, TSUS, providing: Schedule . . . and appliances, and parts thereof: Mirrors and reflectors_ Binocular loupes for eye ex-aminations_ 709.05 . . . Items 709.01 through 709.05 cover optical instruments and appliances. . . . Item 709.05 covers all other optical instruments and appliances. . . . The existing rate of duty for such articles is reflected in item 709.05. . . .
. . . Ataka, the issue was whether certain fiberscopes were properly classified in liquidation under item 709.05 . . .
. . . the above-entitled action requesting that the classification of the imported merchandise under item 709.05 . . .
. . . law as to whether the merchandise is properly classifiable as medical optical instruments under item 709.05 . . .
. . . law as to whether the merchandise is properly classifiable as medical optical instruments under item 709.05 . . .
. . . sustaining Ataka’s protest of the classification of imported goods known as fiberscopes under item 709.05 . . . instruments), and parts thereof: Optical instruments and appliances, and parts thereof: * * * * * * 709.05 . . . status, the Customs Court should have compared the immediately preceding superior headings to items 709.05 . . . We conclude, therefore, that the subject fiberscopes were properly classified under item 709.05, TSUS . . . Ataka presented an additional argument to the effect that item 709.05, TSUS, was not intended to cover . . .
. . . sustaining Ataka's protest of the classification of imported goods known as fiberscopes under item 709.05 . . . ophthalmic instruments), and parts thereof: Optical instruments and appliances, and parts thereof: ******* 709.05 . . . status, tbe Customs Court should bave compared tbe immediately preceding superior headings to items 709.05 . . . , American Cystoscope Makers, Inc., as amicus curiae, points out that tbe superior beading to items 709.05 . . . We conclude, therefore, that the subject fiberscopes were properly classified under item 709.05, TSUS . . .
. . . Upon liquidation the merchandise was classified under item 709.05, TSUS, as modified by T.D. 68-9, providing . . . and opthalmic Instruments), and parts thereof: Optical instruments and appliances, and parts thereof: 709.05 . . . has met its burden of proof that the merchandise in question was not properly classified under item 709.05 . . . included within the purview of item 709.17, TSUS, by virtue of the fact that the superior heading to items 709.05 . . .
. . . Upon liquidation the merchandise was classified under item 709.05, TSUS, as modified by T.D. 68-9, providing . . . instruments), and parts thereof: •Optical instruments and appliances, and parts thereof: * * * * * * * 709.05 . . . has met its burden of proof that the merchandise in question was not properly classified under item 709.05 . . . included within the purview of item 709.17, TSUS, by virtue of the fact that the superior heading to items 709.05 . . .
. . . and parts thereof: Optical instruments and appliances, and parts thereof: * * * Other,” under item 709.05 . . . ophthalmic instruments), and parts thereof: Optical instruments and appliances, and parts thereof: ******* 709.05 . . .
