S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. United States
Decision Date | 16 December 2019 |
Docket Number | Court No. 14-00184,Slip Op. 19-158 |
Citation | 415 F.Supp.3d 1373 |
Parties | S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Michael E. Roll, Pisani & Roll, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, argued for Plaintiff S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. With him on the brief was Brett Ian Harris.
Monica P. Triana, Trial Attorney, International Trade Field Office, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., argued for Defendant United States. On the brief were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Amy M. Rubin, Assistant Director, and Justin R. Miller, Attorney-In-Charge, International Trade Field Office. Of counsel was Sheryl A. French, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, New York, N.Y. Jamie L. Shookman, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., also appeared.
The court held a bench trial to determine the classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS") (2013) of "Ziploc®" brand reclosable plastic bags marketed by S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "S.C. Johnson"). The court denied summary judgment previously based on the existence of genuine issues of material fact. The parties requested that the court hold a bench trial "on the papers" after mutually agreeing to admit all documents, deposition transcripts, and reports into evidence. Pretrial Conference, 2:02:48–2:06:33, Nov. 30, 2018; ECF No. 98 ("Pretrial Conf."); see Pl.'s Post-Trial Mem. of Law, Mar. 8, 2019, ECF No. 111 ("Pl.'s Br."); Def.'s Written Closing Statement, Mar. 8, 2019, ECF No. 109 ("Def.'s Br."); USCIT R. 52(a)(1). Based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court concludes that the subject merchandise are properly classified under HTSUS Heading 3923.
S.C. Johnson entered 1,512 cases of Ziploc® brand reclosable sandwich bags on May 15, 2013. Entry Summary, Entry No. 231-6143028-9, Packing List, Case File. At the time of entry, the subject merchandise were classified under HTSUS Heading 3923. See Pl.'s Rule 56.3 Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, Oct. 31, 2017, ECF No. 63–3 ("Pl.'s Facts") ¶¶ 1–2; Def.'s Resps. to Pl. S.C. Johnson's Rule 56.3 Statement of Material Facts, Dec. 23, 2017, ECF No. 73–3 ("Def. Facts Resp.") ¶¶ 1–2; Entry Summary, Entry No. 231-6143028-9, Packing List, Case File. Customs liquidated the entry on March 28, 2014. See Pl.'s Facts ¶ 3; Def. Facts Resp. ¶ 3; Summons, Aug. 1, 2014, ECF No. 1 ("Summons").
S.C. Johnson filed a protest and requested accelerated disposition on June 26, 2014. See Protest No. 2704-14.10192, Case File. The protest was deemed denied. 19 U.S.C. § 1515(b) ; see Protest No. 2704-14.10192, Case File; see also Summons 1.1
Plaintiff initiated this action on August 1, 2014. Summons 1; Compl. ¶ 1. Defendant answered on August 7, 2015. Answer, Aug. 7, 2015, ECF No. 15. The court granted test case designation on October 5, 2015. Order, Oct. 5, 2015, ECF No. 19; see USCIT R. 84 (2015); USCIT R. 83(e) (2019). This action was reassigned. Order of Reassignment, Jul. 19, 2016, ECF No. 33.
Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Nov. 11, 2017, ECF No. 63; Def.'s Cross-Mot. for Summary J., Dec. 22, 2017, ECF No. 71; S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. United States, 42 CIT ––––, 335 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (2018) (" S.C. Johnson I"). In S.C. Johnson I, the court determined that HTSUS Heading 3923 was a principle use provision and HTSUS Heading 3924 was an eo nomine provision. Id. at 1300–01. Because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the subject merchandise fell within the terms of the HTSUS headings at issue, the court denied both motions for summary judgment and deferred classification of the subject merchandise until the conclusion of trial. Id. at 1301.
Pretrial conferences were held on September 25, 2018, November 14, 2018, and November 30, 2018. Pre-Trial Telephone Conference, Sept. 25, 2018, ECF No. 88; Pre-Trial Teleconference, Nov. 14, 2018, ECF No. 94; Telephone Conference, Nov. 30, 2018; ECF No. 98. The parties agreed to hold a bench trial on the papers, stipulating to the admission of all documents, deposition transcripts, and reports into evidence. Pretrial Conf. at 2:02:48–2:06:33. The court directed the Parties to file written closing arguments and a joint appendix. Order, Nov. 30, 2018, ECF No. 98. The Parties filed a joint appendix. Confidential J.A., Jan. 11, 2019, ECF No. 100.
Defendant filed a consent motion to stay this case following the lapse in appropriations for the U.S. Department of Justice. Consent Mot. to Stay, Jan. 16, 2019, ECF No. 101. The court granted the motion to stay. Order, Jan. 18, 2019, ECF No. 102. The court entered a scheduling order following restoration of appropriations for the U.S. Department of Justice. Scheduling Order, Feb. 4, 2019, ECF No. 104. The Parties filed written closing arguments. Pl.'s Br.; Def.'s Br. The Parties filed supplemental briefing. Pl.'s Br. Regarding Effect of Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 926 F.3d 741 (Fed. Cir. 2019), Jun. 18, 2019, ECF No. 117 () ; Def.'s Resp. to the Ct.'s June 11, 2019 Ltr., Jun. 20, 2019, ECF No. 119.
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2012). The court reviews classification cases on the basis of the record made before the court. 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a).
After holding a bench trial, the court makes the following findings of fact:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Porsche Motorsport N. Am., Inc. v. United States
...on the Court." Skaraborg Invest USA, Inc. v. United States , 9 F.Supp.2d 706, 709 (CIT 1998) ; see also S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. United States , 415 F. Supp. 3d 1373, 1385 (CIT 2019).In CBP Ruling H013537, the party in interest, Texas Aero Engine Services Limited (TAESL), undertook a fun......
-
Porsche Motorsport N. Am., Inc. v. United States
...... . . 1. a. 'Any instrument of manual operation' (Johnson);. a mechanical implement for working upon something, as by. cutting, striking, ...v. United States , 9. F.Supp.2d 706, 709 (CIT 1998); see also S.C. Johnson. & Son, Inc. v. United States , 415 F.Supp.3d 1373,. 1385 (CIT 2019). . . ......
-
Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coal. v. United States, Slip Op. 19-157
......affiliates Bosun Tools, Inc. ("Bosun USA") and Pioneer Tools, Inc. ("Pioneer"). See Final Decision ......