91 F.Supp.3d 1339 (CIT. 2015), 14-00104, United States v. Horizon Products International, Inc.

Docket Nº:14-00104
Citation:91 F.Supp.3d 1339
Opinion Judge:Leo M. Gordon, Judge.
Party Name:UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. HORIZON PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant
Attorney:No. 14-00104 Daniel B. Volk, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice of Washington, D.C. for Plaintiff United States. On the brief with him were Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Claudia Burke, Assist...
Judge Panel:Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge.
Case Date:August 26, 2015
Court:Court of International Trade
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1339

91 F.Supp.3d 1339 (CIT. 2015)

UNITED STATES, Plaintiff,

v.

HORIZON PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant

No. 14-00104

United States Court of International Trade

August 26, 2015

Daniel B. Volk, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice of Washington, D.C. for Plaintiff United States.

On the brief with him were Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Claire J. Lemme, Attorney, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel for U.S. Customs and Border Protection of Miami, Florida. Peter S. Herrick, Peter S. Herrick, P.A. of St. Petersburg, Florida for Defendant Horizon Products International, Inc.

Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge.

OPINION

Page 1340

Leo M. Gordon, Judge.

Recently this Court granted Plaintiff United States (" the Government" ) partial summary judgment with respect to unpaid duties resulting from the misclassification of imports of various types of plywood by Defendant Horizon Products International, Inc. (" Horizon" ). United States v. Int'l, Inc., 39 CIT__, Slip Op. 15-80 (July 24, 2015). Additionally, the court awarded the Government equitable prejudgment interest on those unpaid duties. Id. Lastly the court denied the Government summary judgment on its claim for a civil penalty based on negligence, determining that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding (1) whether Horizon exercised reasonable care in making its entries and (2) the amount of any penalty owed because of Horizon's alleged negligent misclassification of the imported plywood. Id. In view of those decisions, the question is whether the court should enter a partial judgment pursuant to USCIT Rule 54(b) as to the unpaid duties and the award of equitable pre-judgment interest. For the reasons set forth below, the court will enter a Rule 54(b) partial judgment.

Rule 54(b) provides in part that

[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.

USCIT R. 54(b).

Rule 54(b) requires finality--" an ultimate...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP