of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law. Equally well established precedent, from the same sources as above, state that absent a use provision, an article is to be classifi tablished rule that classification of articles must be determined on their condition as imported); accord United States v. Irwin, 78 F. 799, 801 (2d. Cir. 1897) (applying the rule in Worthington to gunstocks and barrels imported on the same ship and determining that in their condition as imported they were breach loading shotguns); accord United States v. Winkler-Koch Eng’g. Co., 41 C.C.P.A. 121, 122 (1953) (noting “[i]t is academic that the classification of merchandise for duty purposes is governed by its condition as imported ***.”); Rico Import Co. v. United States, 12 F.3d 1088, 1090 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Mita Copystar America v. United States, 21
holding that absent a use provision the article had to be classified on its condition as imported recognizing that before a special condition of probation may be imposed there must be an oral pronouncement of the condition at sentencing 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 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