the Court set out the exception to the rule that an importer has the right to fashion his or her merchandise to obtain the lowest rate of duty “[s]o long as no deception is practised, so long as the goods are truly invoiced and freely and honestly exposed to the officers of customs for their examination, no fraud is committed, no penalty is incurred.” Id. at 704. As discussed above, Plaintiff obtained an advance ruling describing the sugar syrup and its manufacturing process, and a subsequent investigation revealed that Plaintiff was complying with the terms of the advance ruling. Thus, Plaintiffs practice does not fall within the exception annou 416 (1912), the issue was whether pearls, which had been drilled with holes and strung for display, were pr 15 Ct. Cust. App. 198, 201 (1927) (<HOLDING>); Corporacion Argentina de Productores de
holding that even if contract lacks mutuality at time it is made whole or partial performance may render it enforceable holding that an importer could import one large blanket at a lower duty rate even if it later made it into two smaller ones holding that because a lower performance evaluation resulted in a lower bonus amount which is analogous to ones salary or to a benefit of ones employment it was adverse holding that it is not holding that the addition of a enough cereal to dog food to place it in a tariff provision with a lower rate of duty was within the importers right to fashion merchandise to obtain a lower rate of duty