Court Opinion

ID: 8119252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 14:49:44.674339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:38:54.868672
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
Landis, Judge:
I join in the opinion of my colleague and would add but one comment.
While this case was tried and briefed on the issue of whether the imported merchandise is a “prepared meal”, I am not at all sure that plaintiffs could have overturned the collector’s classification on a mere showing that it was not a “prepared meal”.1 Assuming that it was not a “prepared meal”, it would still be presumptively an “edible preparation not specially provided for” i.e. more than just alimentary paste without eggs, or soup preparations, as claimed.
In short, I am of the opinion that plaintiffs had a greater burden than just to show the imported merchandise was not a “prepared meal”.

 The pertinent portion of TSUS under which the merchandise was classified follows:
Edible preparations not specially provided for (including prepared meals individually packaged) :
* * * t * * *
182,91 Other_20% ad val.