General Electric Co.-Medical Systems Group v. U.S.
| Citation | 273 F.3d 1070 |
| Decision Date | 18 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-1263,00-1263 |
| Parties | (Fed. Cir. 2001) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY - MEDICAL SYSTEMS GROUP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade, Judge Evan J. Wallach
Patrick C. Reed, Wasserman, Schneider, Babb & Reed, of New York, New York, for plaintiff-appellant.
Amy M. Rubin, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, International Trade Field Office, Department of Justice, of New York, New York, for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, of Washington, DC; and Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney In Charge, International Trade Field Office. Of counsel on the brief was Beth C. Brotman, Attorney, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, United States Customs Service, International Trade Litigation, of New York, New York.
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, MICHEL and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
General Electric Company - Medical Systems Group (GE) petitions for panel rehearing of one point of law in the court's April 19, 2001 decision. The court invited the United States to respond, and it does not object to the relief sought by GE. The petition for rehearing filed by GE is granted for the limited purpose of amending the opinion.
GE argues that the proper tariff classification of the imported multiformat camera (MFC) designed for use with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems is an electro-diagnostic apparatus in subheading 9018.19.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) rather than in subheading 9018.90.80. The United States agrees that subheading 9018.19.80 is the most appropriate provision for MFCs used with MRI systems.
Accordingly, the following sentence from page 8-9 of the April 19, 2001 opinion is deleted: "Therefore, the remaining MFC dedicated for use in MRI systems is properly classified under subheading 9018.90.80 as "[o]ther instruments and appliances and parts and accessories thereof: other: other.'" That sentence is replaced with: "Therefore, the remaining MFC dedicated for use in MRI systems is properly classified under subheading 9018.19.80 as '. . . Electro-diagnostic apparatus . . .; [and] parts and accessories thereof: . . . other: . . . other.'''
Furthermore, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 121 S.Ct. 2164 (2001), the first paragraph of the Discussion section is deleted and the following paragraph is substituted:
We review a grant of summary judgment by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slomcenski v. Citibank, N.A.
......Mitchell, Mitchell Law Group, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant. . ... . This appeal requires us to address, inter alia, whether a fact-based ..., implement, and maintain high quality systems, interface with managers about the department's ... of the supplemental Wade affidavit, more general evidence that the amendment was properly made. . ......
-
Amcor Flexibles Singen GMBH v. United States
...time of importation. Gen Elec. Co.-Med. Sys. Grp. v. United States , 247 F.3d 1231, 1235 (Fed. Cir.), opinion amended on' reh'g , 273 F.3d 1070 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The GRIs do not define "essential character" but the Explanatory Notes to GRI 3(b) provide guidance to make this determination. S......
-
Cummins Inc. v. U.S.
...under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). Discussion We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment on tariff classifications de novo. Gen. Elec. Co. — Med. Sys. Group v. United States, 273 F.3d 1070, 1071 (Fed. Cir.2001) (citation omitted). A classification decision involves two underlying step......
-
Whirlpool Corp. v. U.S.
...the same purpose. In General Electric Co. v. United States, 247 F.3d 1231 (Fed.Cir.2001), amended on limited grant of rehearing, 273 F.3d 1070 (Fed. Cir.2001), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found an item to be a "combination apparatus" when it contained two components that ne......