was common in sugar refining operations, but even if it were not, the motive of the importer in fashioning his or her merchandise is simply not a relevant inquiry. In fact, to the extent motive is relevant, an importer who intends to fashion merchandise solely for the purpose of obtaining the lowest rate of duty is within his or her legal right. Customs’ disregard or misinterpretation, it matters not which, of the Merritt line of precedent was arbitrary, capricious, an 1079, 1082 (1994) (noting the well settled principle of law that merchandise is classified in its condition as imported thereby precluding classification as unmixed products because the fact that the substances had to be mixed prior to use was not relevant); accord Cook v. United States, 49 Cust. Ct. 11, 13 (1962) (<HOLDING>); Pasadena Firearms, 56 Cust. Ct. at 334
holding that absent a use provision the article had to be classified on its condition as imported holding that flax straw was specifically enumerated without qualification as to use and despite stipulation that it was to be used for paper making it had to be classified in its condition as imported holding that wheat unfit for human consumption at the time of importation though later used in an article fit for human consumption must be classified in its condition as imported holding that despite alleged uses articles must be classified in their condition as imported holding that the dutiable classification of gunstocks must be made on their condition as imported