Micro Systems Engineering Inc. v. United States, 080717 USCIT, 13-00317
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
|Attorney:||Dated: August 7, 2017 Elon A. Pollack, Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack & O'Hara, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff. Alexander Vanderweide, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, of New York, NY, for defendant. With him on brief were Chad A. Readler...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge.|
|Opinion Judge:||Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge.|
|Party Name:||MICRO SYSTEMS ENGINEERING INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. Slip Op. 17-97|
|Case Date:||August 07, 2017|
Granting Plaintiff's USCIT Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Dated: August 7, 2017 Elon A. Pollack, Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack & O'Hara, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff.
Alexander Vanderweide, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, of New York, NY, for defendant. With him on brief were Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Amy M. Rubin, Assistant Director.
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge.
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge.
This case involves the classification of certain parts used to manufacture subassemblies for pacemakers imported by Micro Systems Engineering, Inc. ("Plaintiff"). See Summons, Aug. 28, 2013, ECF No. 1; Compl. ¶ 5, Aug. 9, 2016, ECF No. 13. Plaintiff imported forty entries of the merchandise between January 2011 and June 2011.1 See Summons. U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") classified and liquidated the merchandise under various provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"). See Compl. ¶ 5; Answer ¶ 5, Feb. 15, 2017, ECF No. 21. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Customs misclassified the imported merchandise because the parts are specially designed or adapted for use in heart pacemakers and are classifiable under the Nairobi Protocol to the Florence Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials ("Nairobi Protocol"). See Compl. ¶ 7. The HTSUS implemented the Nairobi Protocol under subheading 9817.00.96, which is a duty free provision that exempts payment of certain merchandise processing fees. See 19 C.F.R. § 24.23(c)(1)(i). Defendant agrees that the imported pacemaker components contained in the entries at issue are classifiable under HTSUS subheading 9817.00.96. See Answer n.1, ¶ 7.
Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(c). See Mot. J. Pleadings, Mar. 22, 2017, ECF No. 24. USCIT Rule 12(c) permits a party to move for judgment on the pleadings "after the pleadings are closed and if it would not delay trial." Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 29 CIT 1401, 1402, 403 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1349 (2005), aff'd, 476 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See New Zealand Lamb Co., Inc. v. United States, 40 F.3d 377, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Gen. Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1079 (1990)). Plaintiff asserts that there are no factual or legal disputes for the court to review and the court should enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor because Defendant admits that the imported goods are classifiable under the Nairobi Protocol. See Mot. J. Pleadings...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP