Basf Corp. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 15 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | SLIP OP. 04-87. Court No. 02-00260. |
| Citation | 341 F.Supp.2d 1298 |
| Parties | BASF CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Frederic D. Van Arnam, Jr.), New York, N.Y., for Plaintiff.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Barbara S. Williams, Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office; Harry A. Valetk, Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Michael Heydrich, Attorney, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United States Customs and
Border Protection, for Defendant, of counsel.
Plaintiff BASF Corporation ("BASF") initiated this suit to challenge the United States Customs Service's, now organized as the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection ("Customs"), denial of BASF's protest of the classification of seven entries of PURADD(R) FD-100. Defendant moves for summary judgment, asserting that no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. BASF opposes Defendant's motion. This court has jurisdiction to review this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2000). For the reasons detailed below, this Court denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court also denies Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply.
This case involves seven entries of PURADD(R) FD-100, "a clear, colorless liquid containing 53[%] [polyisobutylene amine (`PIBA')] and 47[%] saturated hydrocarbons," which is "commonly used as a component of prepared gasoline additive detergent packages" made between January and August 2000. (Pl.'s Statement of Facts ("Pl.'s Statement") ¶¶ 1, 8.); .1) "PIBA is a slightly polymerized polymer that has at least five monomer units and is obtained from isobutene" and is primarily made up of polyisobutylene ("PIB"). The PIBA component of PURADD(R) FD-100 undergoes the following manufacturing process: "inert saturated hydrocarbons [are added to] the highly reactive polyisobutylene (known as HR PIB or by its trade name Glissopal(R) 1000) ... to reduce the viscosity of the HR PIB and to ensure that it may be pumped and stored safely." "After importation, PURADD(R) FD-100 is blended together with various chemicals to create a fully formulated deposit control additive package." "PURADD(R) FD-100 is not sold or used as a prepared additive for gasoline [and] is not referred to as an unfinished or incomplete prepared additive for gasoline by the industry."
Customs initially classified the merchandise under subheading 3811.19.002 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"), "Antiknock Preparations: Other." Customs Ruling Letter HQ 9643190 (June 26, 2001) at 1 (Def.'s Ex. E). Customs subsequently revoked the ruling letter which classified the merchandise under 3811.19.00 and reclassified the merchandise as a gasoline detergent additive under subheading 3811.90.00,3 HTSUS. Id. BASF requested reconsideration of the revocation and sought classification of the merchandise under subheading 3902.20.50,4 HTSUS, the provision for other polyisobutylene or PIBs. Id.
Summary judgment will be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and the admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." USCIT R. 56(c); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment "bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of all genuine issues of material fact." Avia Group Int'l v. L.A.Gear California, Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed.Cir.1988). The moving party may do this "by producing evidence showing the lack of any genuine issue of material fact." Black and White Vegetable Co. v. United States, 125 F.Supp.2d 531, 536 (CIT 2000) (citations omitted).
A party opposing a well-supported motion for summary judgment may not simply rely on its pleading. Id. In order to successfully defeat the motion, the party "must show an evidentiary conflict on the record." Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390-91 (Fed.Cir.1987). "[T]he inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in such materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962); see also Avia Group Int'l, 853 F.2d at 1560.
"[A]t the summary judgment stage the [Court's] function is not ... to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. "Whether a disputed fact is material is identified by the substantive law and whether the finding of that fact might affect the outcome of the suit." E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. United States, 123 F.Supp.2d 637, 639 (CIT 2000) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505).
Defendant characterizes the matter before the Court as a simple classification case, in which "[t]he parties agree on the chemical characteristics PURADD(R) FD-100" and its use in the United States, but they do not agree on PURADD(R) FD-100's classification. ("Def.'s Mem. in Support of Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (`Def.'s Mem.') at 12-13; Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (`Def.'s Reply') at 5.") Defendant contends that summary judgment is, therefore, appropriate because there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. (Def.'s Reply at 1.)
Defendant describes PURADD(R) FD-100 as "an `unfinished' fuel detergent additive, containing [PIBA] — a patented and key ingredient for fuel detergency — marketed as the most important component of fuel detergent additive packages for preventing engine deposits" and alleges that PURADD® FD-100's "sole use in the U.S. is as a fuel detergent additive component." (Def.'s Reply at 1-2.) Defendant asserts that, based on BASF's admissions and its patent for PIBA, both parties agree that PURADD® FD-100 is used "as a detergent active component in making fuel additive packages." (Id. at 5; see also Def.'s Mem. at 5.) Defendant surmises that the challenges raised by BASF as to the description of PURADD® FD-100 as "an unfinished fuel detergent additive" do not establish the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact, but rather demonstrate a "dispute in legal conclusions" based upon undisputed facts. (Def.'s Reply at 8.)
Defendant asserts that the classification of the merchandise as a gasoline detergent additive is correct "because [PURADD® FD-100] has the properties of a detergent as imported" and its only use in the United States is as a "fuel detergent additive component in a fuel detergent additive package." (Def.'s Mem. at 9.) Defendant offers the following summary of the way in which PURADD® FD-100 is produced: first, PIB polymer is converted to PIBA through a two-step chemical transformation process (Id.); second, "[t]he result is a high purity, highly active, chlorine-free, water-white product providing superior intake valve detergency while controlling combustion deposits" (Id. (quoting BASF's Website Fuel Additives Product Line Information (Def.'s Ex. F))); finally, saturated hydrocarbons are then added to the PIBA, which results in PURADD® FD-100. (Id. (citing Crawford Report at 5 (Def.'s Ex. H)).)
Defendant asserts that after importation, PURADD® FD-100 "is blended with carrier oil, and anti-corrosive and other ingredients to produce a final fuel detergent additive package (PURADD® AP-97) ready for use in today's engines." (Def.'s Reply at 6.) Defendant alleges that "[b]lending [the mixing/adding of other substances to the PURADD® FD-100] does not involve a chemical transformation process, since no new chemical bonds are formed and no existing bonds are broken" and does not alter the character of PIBA, "the active — key — ingredient of PURADD® FD-100." (Def.'s Mem. at 10.) Defendant asserts that this evidence demonstrates that "it is undisputed that PURADD® FD-100's virtually sole use is a component of gasoline detergent additive." (Def.'s Reply at 7.) Defendant notes that information supplied by a BASF employee, Dr. Erich Fehr, BASF's Head of Marketing Fuel Additives Performance Chemicals for Automotive and Oil Industry, during his deposition supports the conclusion that PURADD® FD-100 is almost exclusively used as a component of gasoline detergent additive. (Def.'s Mem. at 4, 17, 20) (citing Fehr Dep. (Def.'s Ex. I); see also Def.'s Reply at 6-7.) Defendant argues that "[e]ven if PURADD® FD-100 cannot be considered a prepared additive in its condition as imported, it is — at the very least — an `unfinished' prepared additive. (Def. Mem. at 5, 20 (citing Crawford Report at 9 (Def.'s Ex. H)).)
Defendant argues that BASF's assertion that there are issues of material fact because Defendant might have a different understanding of PURADD® FD-100's manufacture is incorrect. (Def.'s Reply at 12.) Defendant asserts that any difference in the parties' recitations of the manufacturing process is "immaterial" to the way in which it is classified and does not give rise to the existence of a dispute in material fact. (Id.) Defendant also refutes BASF's assertion that Defendant must establish that PURADD® FD-100 is "`primarily used' as a detergent additive `as is.'" (Id. at 7 (citing Pl.'s Opp'n at 7-11.).) Defendant argues that this is "a fact that neither side is claiming;" moreover, Defendant states that it "do[es] not materially ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Basf Corp. v. U.S.
...facts of this case were also set forth in this Court's opinion denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment. BASF Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT ___, 341 F.Supp.2d 1298 (2004). For ease of reference, certain pertinent facts are reiterated here. Additional Court-found facts will be set fo......