the Court had this to say: Perhaps Congress may have acted under a mistaken idea that color would always indicate quality. Perhaps, up to the time th A. 74, 80 (1962) (stating that in deciding the proper classification of the merchandise the importer’s motivation was immaterial and ultimately affirming the finding that the merchandise was raw sugar dyed green); accord Fries Bros. v. United States, 4 Treas. Dec. 850, 852-54 (1901) (recognizing the principle that importers have the right to fashion merchandise to obtain the lowest rate of duty and that classification is decided on the merchandise at the time of importation but applying the exception that if something is added after manufacture it may be disregarded); Pasadena Firearms Co. v. United States, 56 Cust. Ct. 331, 337 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Customs incorrectly applied the Merritt line
holding that intent is a separate element and evidence relating to intent is irrelevant to determining whether an object is a criminal instrument holding that knowing but failing to communicate a correct diagnosis may constitute a separate act of negligence holding that the importers intent to combine pistol barrels and frames imported in separate shipments was irrelevant to the correct classification holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial holding that the presence of the correct address in the sworn affidavit could correct a typographical error in the warrant