G & R Produce Co. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 15 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | SLIP OP. 03-119.,Court No. 96-11-02569. |
| Citation | 281 F.Supp.2d 1323 |
| Parties | G & R PRODUCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Givens and Johnston, PLLC (Robert T. Givens, Scott L. Johnston), for Plaintiffs.
David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General; John J. Mahon, Acting Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Amy M. Rubin, Trial Attorney; Beth C. Brotman, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United States Customs Service, for Defendant, of counsel.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter is before the court for decision following a bench trial on February 26, 2003. Plaintiff, G & R Produce Co., with ten other consolidated parties, ("Plaintiffs") challenge the United States Customs Service's1 ("Customs") refusal to reliquidate certain entries of Persian limes.2 This consolidated case was brought after Customs refused to stipulate judgment in each individual matter, pursuant to this court's holding in Black & White Vegetable Co. v. United States, 125 F.Supp.2d 531 (CIT 2000).3 The court previously opined in G & R Produce I that material facts were in issue as to whether the Customs import specialists were aware of the proper botanical classification of the limes, and the significance of their choice of tariff classification.
In this matter, Plaintiffs claim that Customs was a party to the entry of Persian limes under an incorrect tariff provision for over five years and that Customs misclassified their lime entries because the import specialists were not aware of the correct scientific and botanical facts regarding the limes. According to Plaintiffs, Customs erred in denying both their request to have their Persian Lime entries reliquidated and their subsequent protests. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek the reliquidation of their entries and a full refund of duties paid.
Defendant argues that regardless of whether the parties were mistaken as to the botanical names and varieties of the limes, the Persian limes at issue were misclassified as a result of an error in the construction of the law, specifically, an error in the interpretation of the tariff phrase "limes (Citrus aurantifolia)" in subheading 0805.30.40 of the HTSUS and therefore, the Plaintiffs have not met the statutory criteria required for relief.
Pursuant to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, and in accordance with USCIT R. 52(a), the court enters a final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant.
Plaintiffs imported Citrus latifolia, commonly known as Persian limes, from Mexico in 1993 and 1994. The imported limes were classified under subheading 0805.30.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"), which encompassed "Citrus Fruit, fresh or dried: Lemons (Citrus limon, Citrus Limonum) and limes (Citrus Aurantifolia): Limes."4 Different botanical varieties of limes were distinguished in the tariff schedule effective January 1, 1989. Limes, Citrus aurantifolia, were listed eo nomine while other lime varieties, including Citrus latifolia, were classified as "other" at a lower duty rate.5
On June 30, 1994, Customs posted Administrative Message 94-0661 ("Administrative Message") that gave notice of statistical breakout changes to subheading 0805.90.00. Effective July 1, 1994, a statistical modification and an additional breakout, 0805.90.00.10, which referenced Citrus latifolia, eo nomine, were added to the HTSUS.6
After publication of the Administrative Message, Customs and Plaintiffs discovered that Plaintiffs' lime entries were being classified under the wrong tariff number. Subsequently, Plaintiffs requested that Customs reliquidate its entries. Customs treated Plaintiffs' requests as mistake of fact claims pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c)(1) (1994)7 and decided Plaintiffs had not met the statutory criteria. Therefore, Customs denied Plaintiffs' request for reliquidation and subsequent protests.
Jurisdiction of the Court is found under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (1994), which provides for judicial review of denied protests filed in compliance with the provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 1514 (1999). Although Customs's decisions are entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1) (1994), the Court makes its determinations upon the basis of the record made before the Court, rather than that developed by Customs. See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 233 n. 16, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001). Accordingly, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as a result of the de novo trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a) (1994).
1. The merchandise in issue consists of fresh Persian limes imported into the United States from Mexico in 1993 and 1994.
2. The botanical name for the limes in issue is Citrus latifolia.
3. Limes of the Citrus latifolia variety are a distinct botanical variety from limes of the Citrus aurantifolia variety.
4. The phrase Citrus aurantifolia refers to a variety of limes, but is not a synonym for the word limes.
5. Plaintiffs' Persian limes were entered under subheading 0805.30.40 of the HTSUS, that referred to "Limes (Citrus Aurantifolia)," eo nomine, at a duty rate of 2.2 cents per kilogram during 1993 and 1.9 cents per kilogram during 1994.
6. Customs liquidated the limes under HTSUS subheading 0805.30.40 and imposed duties.
7. Plaintiffs' entries of limes of the Citrus latifolia variety should have been entered under HTSUS subheading 0805.90.00, at a duty rate of .9% ad valorem in 1993 and duty free in 1994 8. Plaintiffs' entries of Persian limes were misclassified upon entry and liquidation.
9. The classification error is manifest from the record.
10. On June 30, 1994, the Committee for Statistical Annotation published statistical modifications, which included a breakout of subheading 0805.90.00, expressly encompassing "Tahitian limes, Persian limes and other limes of the Citrus latifolia variety".
11. Information regarding the statistical breakout was disseminated by the Customs Service through Administrative Message 94-0661.
12. Each of the importers in this consolidated action submitted requests for Customs to reliquidate their entries under subheading 0805.90.00 more than ninety days following liquidation.
13. Customs treated the importers' requests as claims under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c)(1).
14. Customs denied Plaintiffs' claims for relief under § 1520(c)(1).
15. Plaintiffs filed protests with Customs.
16. All of the protests involved in this consolidated action were filed, and the actions commenced, within the time provided by law.
17. All liquidated duties and fees relating to the imported merchandise were paid.
18. The Court permitted the Defendant to read into the record various excerpts from Plaintiffs' customs brokers depositions; and enter them into evidence.
19. Customs designated Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja as its agent in response to Plaintiffs' notice of deposition in this case. The Court found the testimony of Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja, a Customs import specialist with more than fifteen years of experience, highly probative and credible.
20. In December 1991, Customs Team 688, for the port of Laredo, Texas, was formed.
21. Customs Team 688 was responsible for classifying merchandise and entries that fell under the first 24 chapters of the HTSUS, which include citrus fruit and the variety of limes at issue.
22. Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja was responsible for overseeing Team 688 and insuring that entries of merchandise were accurately classified, and that the team complied with Customs regulations and other Government agency requirements.
23. Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja has been the Customs Team leader in charge of Team 688 since its formation.
24. In 1993 and 1994 Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja and Team 688 were responsible for lime entries in for the Laredo service port and the Brownsville, Progresso, Hidalgo, Rio Grande City, and Roma ports of entry.
25. Both Key limes and Persian limes were imported through the Hidalgo port of entry.
26. Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja and her team received training on bypass procedures and she was familiar with Customs Directive No. 3550-26, entitled Entry Simplification —Bypass Procedure.
27. Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja placed Persian limes on bypass because she had no issues with their entry and liquidation.
28. Bypass entries are subject to random sampling and review by Customs import specialists.
29. The majority of Plaintiffs' entries were placed on bypass.
30. Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja and the Customs import specialists knew that the HTSUS referenced Citrus aurantifolia under subheading 0805.
31. Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja did not know that more than one botanical variety of limes existed until after publication of the Administrative Message.
32. Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja did not know the specific scientific and botanical nomenclature for the Plaintiffs' lime varieties at the time of their entry.
33. Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja mistakenly believed at the time of Plaintiffs' lime entries that the botanical phrase Citrus aurantifolia described all limes.
34. Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja did not know that the correct botanical name for Plaintiffs' Persian limes was Citrus latifolia until after publication of the Administrative Message.
35. The Plaintiffs' customs brokers did not know the taxonomy for lime varieties.
36. Customs' import specialists neither exercised judgment nor made a classification decision based upon the taxonomy or botanical names of the limes.
37. Ms. Gonzalez-Castilleja would have classified the limes differently, prior to publication of the Administrative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Rockwell Automation Inc., Slip Op. 06-155. Court No. 04-00549.
...save both Customs, and qualifying importers, time and money in the process of liquidating entries. See G & R Produce Co. v. United States, 27 CIT ___, ___, 281 F.Supp.2d 1323, 1334 (2003). To qualify for the automatic bypass system, importers must first submit entry summaries to Customs. Up......
- Skf Usa Inc. v. U.S.
-
Motorola, Inc. v. U.S.
...procedures to manage its workload," and reviews the entries' tariff classification for accuracy. G & R Produce Company v. United States, 27 CIT ___, ___, 281 F.Supp.2d 1323, 1333 (2003). Moreover, although the entries are on "bypass status," Customs continues to randomly sample and review t......
-
Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc. v. U.S
...under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, and "ignorant mistakes," which are remediable under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c). See G & R Produce Co. v. United States, 27 CIT ___, ___, 281 F.Supp.2d 1323, 1331 (2003); Prosegur, Inc. v. United States, 25 CIT 364, 370, 140 F.Supp.2d 1370, 1378 (2001); Universal Coops., Inc......