Otter Prods., LLC v. United States

• Decision Date: 18 August 2021
• Docket Number: Court No. 13-00269,Slip Op. 21-103
• Parties: OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

532 F.Supp.3d 1345

OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Slip Op. 21-103

Court No. 13-00269

United States Court of International Trade.

August 18, 2021

Louis S. Mastriani and Lydia C. Pardini, Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, L.L.P., of Washington D.C., for Plaintiff Otter Products, LLC.

Justin R. Miller, attorney-in-charge, International Trade Field Office, and Beverly A. Farrell, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., for Defendant United States. Also on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Jeanne E. Davidson, Director.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Kelly, Judge:

Before the court are Plaintiff Otter Products, LLC's ("OtterBox") motions to enforce the court's June 2, 2015 judgment (see Judgment, June 2, 2015, ECF No. 57 ("Judgment")) and for leave to file a reply in further support of the motion to enforce the Judgment. See Pl.’s Mot. to Enforce Ct.’s J., June 2, 2021, ECF No. 71 ("Mot. to Enforce"); Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Enforce Ct.’s J., July 2, 2021, ECF No. 75 ("Mot. for Reply").¹

OtterBox asks the court to order Defendant United States to re-open a prior disclosure filed on December 5, 2013 with U.S. Customs and Border Protection's ("CBP") Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures office in Los Angeles under Prior Disclosure No. 2013-1209-162817 (the "Prior Disclosure") and closed by CBP on November 18, 2014. Mot. to Enforce at 4–6, 9. OtterBox alleges that CBP was required to keep the Prior Disclosure open until final resolution of the above-entitled action and then liquidate the entries covered by the Prior Disclosure in accordance with the court's Judgment. Id. at 11. OtterBox argues that CBP erred in closing the Prior Disclosure and is required by the court's Judgment to re-open the Prior Disclosure and reliquidate the entries in that prior disclosure in accordance with the Judgment.² Id.

Defendant opposes the Motion to Enforce on the grounds that payments made in connection with a prior disclosure are voluntary and not protestable, that neither the Prior Disclosure, nor the entries referenced in it, were part of the above-entitled action, and that therefore the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief OtterBox seeks in its Motion to Enforce. See Def.’s Resp. in Opp'n. to Pl.’s Mot. to Enforce Ct.’s J. at 4–11, June 25, 2021, ECF No. 74 ("Def. Opp."). Defendant opposes the Motion for Reply on the grounds that OtterBox's Proposed Reply does not contain any information or argument that could not have been or was not raised in its moving papers and that, in any event, the additional argumentation is irrelevant because "[t]he Court needs no help in construing the scope of its own jurisdiction, which is currently the only subject at issue regarding [OtterBox's Motion to Enforce]." Def.’s Resp. in Opp'n. to Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Enforce the Ct.’s J. at 7–9, July 23, 2021, ECF No.76.

For the following reasons, the court denies OtterBox's Motion to Enforce and Motion for Reply.

BACKGROUND

The court presumes familiarity with the facts of this case as set forth in this court's and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's previous decisions, and now recites only those facts relevant to the disposition of OtterBox's motions. See Otter Products, LLC v. United States, 39 CIT ––––, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (2015) (" OtterBox I"); Otter Products, LLC v. United States, 834 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (" OtterBox II"); Memo. & Order, Feb. 1, 2017, Dkt. 67 ("OtterBox III"). On August 2, 2013, OtterBox filed a complaint in this Court challenging CBP's classification of certain of its merchandise under HTSUS subheading 4202.99.9000 at a duty rate of 20%. See Compl. ¶¶ 16–23, August 2, 2013, ECF No. 4. OtterBox contended that its merchandise was properly classified under HTSUS subheading 3926.90.9980 at a duty rate of 5.3%. Id. ¶ 23. The classification dispute affected the duty rate of the entire transaction value of the merchandise OtterBox entered, protested, and challenged, which included the value of any assists. See OtterBox I, 39 CIT at ––––, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 1284. OtterBox alleged that it had not paid duty on certain assists upon entry of the merchandise, and those assists were the subject of post-entry tenders as well as reconciliation entries. Compl. ¶¶ 8–13; see also Pl.’s Memo. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 26–27, Oct. 9, 2014, ECF No. 25-1 ("Pl. SJ Br."); Answers to Questions Presented in Teleconf. of Apr. 2, 2015, Ex. 1, Apr. 17, 2015, Dkt. 50 ("Def. Suppl. Submission on Post-Entry Tenders").

OtterBox's Complaint asserted the Court possessed jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) because OtterBox challenged the denial of a protest it made pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1515. Id. ¶¶ 1, 7. OtterBox's summons identified Protest No. 2006-13-101283 (the "Subject Protest"), filed on July 2, 2013 and denied on August 1, 2013, which covered Entry Nos. 112-7334796-8, 112-7391483-3, 112-7967525-5, and 112-8546857-0 (the "Subject Entries"). See Summons, Aug. 2, 2013, ECF No. 1. OtterBox paid two post-entry tenders of additional duties on assists related to the Subject Entries that were not paid at the time of entry. See Compl. ¶ 11–12; Pl. SJ Br. at 26–27; Def. Suppl. Submission on Post-Entry Tenders, Ex. 1, On December 5, 2013, OtterBox filed the Prior Disclosure. Mot. to Enforce at 3–4.

After cross-motions for summary judgment, the court issued an opinion holding that CBP had erroneously classified the Subject Entries and entered a Judgment that ordered Defendant to reliquidate the Subject Entries under HTSUS subheading 3926.90.9980 at the lower duty rate of 5.3% and to refund all duties overpaid, plus interest, as provided by law. See OtterBox I, 39 CIT at ––––, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 1295–98 ; see also Judgment. Defendant appealed the court's decision that the Subject Entries were misclassified, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this court's Judgment. See OtterBox II, 834 F.3d at 1381. Following the Court of Appeals’ decision, Defendant filed a motion for clarification of the Judgment regarding post-entry tenders relating to assists. See Def.’s Mot. for Clarification of Ct.’s J., Jan. 12, 2017, ECF No. 63 ("Mot. to Clarify Judg."). The court denied the motion, holding,

The court's opinion speaks for itself on the issue of whether the judgment requires a refund of overpayment duties associated with post-entry tenders. The court clearly determined that "the ad valorem duty rate of 5.3% applies to the entire transaction value of OtterBox's entries, including the value of assists paid subsequent to importation."

OtterBox III at 2 (quoting OtterBox I, 39 CIT at ––––, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 1284 ).

OtterBox now brings the present Motion to Enforce and related Motion for Reply, asking the court to require Defendant to re-open the Prior Disclosure and reliquidate the associated entries on the grounds that the court's Judgment applies not only to the Subject Entries that were covered by the protest identified on OtterBox's Summons, but also to all other entries of the same or similar merchandise. Mot. to Enforce at 9–11. For the following reasons, the court declines to expand its Judgment beyond the entries that were the subject of OtterBox's protest listed on the Summons and denies the Motion to Enforce and the Motion for Reply.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1515 (2018),³ and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2018).⁴ The Court has inherent authority to enforce its own judgments. See B.F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 18 C.I.T. 35, 36, 843 F.Supp. 713 (1994). This authority includes the "power to determine the effect of its judgments and issue injunctions to protect against attempts to attack or evade those judgments." United States v. Hanover Ins. Co., 82 F.3d 1052, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

The Court grants motions to enforce a judgment "when a prevailing plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it, even if the noncompliance was due to misinterpretation of the judgment." GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 39 CIT ––––, ––––, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1272 (2015) (quoting Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2004) ).

The Court has discretion to accept a reply brief on a non-dispositive motion. See Retamal v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., Dep't of Homeland Sec., 439 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that the court may allow reply briefs for non-dispositive motions).

DISCUSSION

OtterBox asks the court to order CBP to reopen the Prior Disclosure and reliquidate the associated entries at a duty rate of 5.3% pursuant to HTSUS subheading 3926.90.9980. Mot. to Enforce at 14. OtterBox asserts that the court's Judgment applies to the Prior Disclosure, and therefore Defendant is required to reopen the Prior Disclosure and reliquidate the entries covered by the Prior Disclosure in accordance with the Judgment. Id. at 9. Defendant opposes the Motion to Enforce on the grounds that neither the Prior Disclosure nor the entries associated with it were part of the Subject Protest listed on the Summons and therefore are not within the Court's subject matter jurisdiction in this action. Def. Opp. at 4. For the following reasons, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the entries encompassed by the Prior Disclosure and therefore denies OtterBox's motion.

The Court of International Trade ("CIT"), like all federal courts established under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, is a court of limited jurisdiction. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The CIT is presumed to lack jurisdiction unless an affirmative basis for jurisdiction can be demonstrated. Id. When an action is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), jurisdiction is predicated upon a denied protest of CBP...