Torrington Co. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
764 F.2d 1563 (1985)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Torrington Co. (plaintiff) imported sewing needles into the United States (defendant) from Portugal. Torrington asserted that the needles were substantially transformed in Portugal and should have been entitled to duty-free importation under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) statute. In Portugal, Torrington’s affiliated company used wire imported from a nonbeneficiary developing country (BDC) to make the sewing needles. The wire, while in Portugal, was ran through a swaging machine, which straightened and cut the wire to length. The machine also beveled one end and stretched the wire out. The end result was a swaged needle blank, also called just a needle blank. That needle blank then went through two more processes, one to create the eye of the needle and the last to finish the product and sharpen the point. The finished product was the sewing needle, which was exported to the United States. Customs determined that the sewing needles were not entitled to duty-free entry into the United States under the GSP. Torrington challenged this determination in the United States Court of International Trade, which ruled for Torrington. The United States appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.