in Merritt. The Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit and its predecessor, and this court and its predecessor have repeatedly reaffirmed the principle in Merritt. In United States v. Schoverling, 146 U.S. 76 (1892), an importer entered gunstocks and colluded with another firm to import the barrels separately to avoid the higher rate of duty assessed on fully assembled shotguns. The Court dismissed the United States’ argument that the transaction was a fraud upon the statute by stating that “the intent of the importers to put the gunstocks with barrels separately imported, so as to make here completed guns for sale, cannot affect the rate of duty on the gunstocks as a separate importation.” Id. at 81 (citing Merritt, 104 U.S. 694); see also Seeberger v. Farwell, 139 U.S. 608, 610 (1891) (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Citroen, 223 U.S. 407,
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 recognizing that as with tax rates no one has a legal right to the maintenance of an existing rate or duty holding that mixing just enough cotton with wool to secure a lower rate of duty with no valid commercial purpose for the addition was within the importers legal right holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate