James Lopez Watson

This case involved a 1994 tariff classification action filed by Starkey Laboratories in the Court of International Trade, which was placed on the Reserve Calendar and later dismissed in 1995 by the clerk for lack of prosecution under Rule 83(c) after remaining there for more than 18 months without being suspended or removed. In 2001, the plaintiff, represented by new counsel, moved under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) to vacate the dismissal and reinstate the case, arguing that prior counsel had failed to suspend it under a related test case in which Starkey had prevailed. The court denied the motion, finding no basis for relief because the prior counsel's inaction did not constitute excusable neglect or any other justifying reason, the 18-month removal deadline provided clear notice under the rules, the six-year delay in seeking relief was unreasonable, and reinstatement would prejudice the government.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a tariff classification dispute in which Starkey Laboratories challenged the government's classification of imported merchandise in the Court of International Trade. The action was placed on the Reserve Calendar upon filing in 1993 but was dismissed for lack of prosecution in 1995 under CIT Rule 83(c) after it remained on the calendar for more than 18 months without being removed or suspended. Years later, after prevailing in a related test case, the plaintiff moved under CIT Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) to vacate the dismissal and reinstate the case, citing counsel's failure to file a suspension motion and lack of notice. The court denied the motion, holding that the attorney's neglect was not excusable, the six-year delay in seeking relief was unreasonable, and reinstatement would prejudice the government.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved seventy-five entries of apparel imported from El Salvador between 1990 and 1993 under a continuous surety bond issued by Frontier Insurance Company. U.S. Customs liquidated the entries years later at higher appraised values and demanded additional duties, prompting Frontier to argue that the entries should be deemed liquidated at the entered values because it never received required notices extending the liquidation period. The court granted the government partial summary judgment on thirty-seven entries, holding that 19 U.S.C. §1504 did not require Customs to send extension notices to sureties before the 1993 statutory amendment. For the remaining thirty-eight entries subject to post-amendment extensions, the court denied both parties' summary judgment motions because genuine factual disputes existed over whether the notices were properly sent and received.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the tariff classification of electronic exercise monitors imported by Weslo, Inc. from 1991 to 1993 at the Port of Los Angeles. The importer entered the goods duty-free under HTSUS subheading 9029.20.40 as speedometers, but Customs liquidated them under subheading 9506.91.00 as parts of exercise equipment at a 4.64% duty rate pursuant to a September 1993 ruling. The dispute on cross-motions for partial summary judgment concerned whether Customs violated the notice-and-comment requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c) by failing to follow earlier duty-free rulings. The court held that the Mod Act provision did not apply because liquidation occurred in conformity with the 1993 ruling issued before the statute's effective date, with the relevant modification published afterward, and granted the government's cross-motion while denying the plaintiff's. The court also severed and dismissed seven unrelated entries for lack of jurisdiction.

business & regulatory

This case concerns the U.S. Department of Commerce's Final Results of the Third Administrative Review of an antidumping duty order on cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands, specifically Hoogovens Staal BV's challenge to Commerce's calculations of dumping margins. On remand from a prior decision, the court reviewed Commerce's redetermination regarding levels of trade and the classification of warranty and technical service expenses. The court affirmed Commerce's treatment of the warranty and technical service expenses as direct expenses based on record evidence showing they varied directly with particular sales. The court remanded the level-of-trade determination for further agency action, after Commerce clarified that its finding rested solely on record evidence rather than facts available.

business & regulatory

Glaxo Wellcome Inc. challenged the U.S. Customs Service's assessment of a 6.3% duty on three entries of pharmaceutical products that were entered for immediate transportation at Norfolk, Virginia, on December 28, 1994, even though they were entered for consumption at Durham, North Carolina, on January 3, 1995, after Presidential Proclamation 6763 took effect and reduced the applicable HTSUS rate to zero. The court denied Glaxo's motion for summary judgment and granted the government's cross-motion, upholding Customs' liquidation at the pre-1995 rate. It reasoned that 19 U.S.C. § 1315(a)(2) fixes the duty rate for merchandise covered by an immediate transportation entry as the rate in effect when that entry was accepted at the port of original importation, and the Proclamation's effective-date language did not specially override this statutory rule or the related Customs regulations.

business & regulatorytaxes

The case concerned the proper tariff classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States for imported tent-like articles from China, described as playhouses, play or slumber tents, and vehicle tents featuring colorful licensed graphics of children's characters on vinyl shells supported by plastic poles. Customs classified the merchandise under subheadings in Chapter 39 as other articles of plastics or household articles of plastics, assessing duties, while the importer contended the items qualified as toys under Chapter 95, subheading 9503.90.00, making them duty-free. The Court of International Trade granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's cross-motion, ruling that the articles are properly classifiable as toys. The court reasoned that the merchandise is designed principally for children's amusement, falls within the scope of Chapter 95, and is excluded from Chapter 39 by Note 2(u); it further applied the rule of relative specificity under GRI 3(a) to favor the more specific toy provision over Customs' basket provisions.

business & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over the proper customs classification of motor vehicle parts imported by Holland Hitch Co. The plaintiff sought classification under subheading 8708.99.80 of the HTSUS to qualify for duty-free treatment under the Automotive Products Trade Act. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment after the defendant consented to the classification and duty-free treatment. It ordered the Customs Service to reliquidate the entry accordingly and issue a refund with interest.

business & regulatorytaxes

This case involved Bestfoods' challenge to U.S. Customs regulations on country-of-origin marking for its 'Skippy' peanut butter made using Canadian peanut slurry under NAFTA tariff shift rules. On remand from the Federal Circuit, the court examined whether 19 C.F.R. § 102.13(b), which excludes most agricultural products from the de minimis exception to the tariff shift requirements, was lawful. The court decided that the exclusion was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to law, as Customs' health and food safety justifications lacked support in the record and were addressed by other statutes and regulations. It therefore allowed Bestfoods the opportunity to show that its finished product qualifies for de minimis treatment under section 102.13(a) and need not be marked to indicate a foreign origin under 19 U.S.C. § 1304(a).

business & regulatory

This case involved Genesco Inc. challenging the U.S. Customs Service's classification of six styles of men's and boys' athletic shoes under HTSUS subheadings that impose higher duties due to the presence of a "foxing-like band." The court, ruling on stipulated facts, entered judgment for the defendant, finding that the shoes had a foxing-like band because the combined overlap from the outer sole and heel stabilizer covered nearly 65 percent of the shoe's perimeter, substantially encircling it as per Customs' guidelines in T.D. 92-108. The reasoning centered on statutory interpretation of the HTSUS exceptions, legislative history, and deference to Customs' notice-and-comment rulings, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that overlapping soles should be excluded from the foxing-like band determination.

business & regulatory

This case involved consolidated challenges by Dutch and U.S. steel producers to the Department of Commerce's final results in the first administrative review of an antidumping duty order on cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands covering August 1993 to July 1994. Commerce had applied its reimbursement regulation after determining that the foreign exporter had reimbursed its affiliated U.S. importer for antidumping duties, which raised the dumping margin. Following a prior remand for further explanation, the court sustained Commerce's redetermination on the ground that record evidence, including the parties' agreements and payment practices during the review period, adequately supported the finding of reimbursement. The court distinguished later review periods where the reimbursement practice had ceased and rejected claims that the determination was premature before final assessment.

business & regulatory

This case involves a U.S. government action under 19 U.S.C. § 1592 seeking civil penalties against Ralph Nussbaum and his company Discount Locks, Inc., for allegedly filing false customs entries claiming safes originated in Swaziland (duty-free) when they were actually from South Africa. Nussbaum moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing he was denied due process because he was not named individually in the Customs administrative notices and that the five-year statute of limitations barred the action against him personally. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment due to exhibits outside the pleadings. It rejected the due process defense on grounds of constructive notice but deferred ruling on the limitations defense pending limited discovery on the government's equitable estoppel claim, while staying broader discovery requests. The decision reserves further proceedings on the limitations issue after that discovery.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Tikal Distributing Corp. v. United States, a footwear importer challenged U.S. Customs Service appraisals of 77 entries from Guatemala, arguing that additional payments made under a distributorship agreement for exclusive U.S. and Canada sales rights should not be added to the invoice prices when calculating transaction value under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b). The Court of International Trade denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. The court held that the exclusivity payments were properly included in dutiable value because they were made in connection with the sales of the imported merchandise and formed part of the total payment to the seller. It further ruled that jurisdiction was lacking over the counterclaim concerning one entry where the additional payment had been deducted from the invoice price, as the plaintiff had no viable claim and the liquidation had become final.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case is a customs classification dispute under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) concerning imported paintings from Hong Kong and Korea, which Customs classified under HTSUS subheading 6307.90.99 as other made-up articles while the importer claimed duty-free treatment under subheading 9701.10.00 for paintings executed entirely by hand. After the Federal Circuit remanded for trial on factual issues including sampling, laboratory testing, and production methods, the government moved in limine to exclude proposed exhibits and testimony. The court granted the motion in part, excluding two affidavits (one from a supplier and one from an art professor) as hearsay that did not qualify under the business records exception of Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) or the residual exception of Rule 807, and noted that disputed Customs laboratory reports remain part of the record for weight and reliability determinations rather than admissibility rulings. The core reasoning centered on strict application of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the proffered materials in this classification action.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved challenges by Hoogovens Staal BV, a Dutch steel producer and its U.S. importer, along with domestic U.S. steel producers, to the Department of Commerce's final results in the third administrative review of an antidumping duty order on certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands. Hoogovens contested Commerce's level-of-trade determination, its use of facts otherwise available and adverse inferences, and compliance with statutory requirements, while the domestic producers challenged the agency's refusal to apply its reimbursement regulation and its treatment of warranty and technical service expenses. The court remanded the level-of-trade, facts-available, and warranty-expense issues to Commerce for clarification and reconsideration but affirmed the reimbursement determination as supported by substantial evidence on the record.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge by domestic ferrosilicon producers to the Department of Commerce's countervailing duty order on imports from Venezuela, specifically disputing Commerce's finding that a Venezuelan government entity's purchase of stock in the exporter was consistent with commercial considerations and thus not countervailable. The defendant-intervenor (the Venezuelan exporter) moved to dissolve a 1996 preliminary injunction that barred liquidation of covered entries during the litigation, arguing changed circumstances and inequity, with the government concurring; the plaintiffs opposed, citing statutory requirements under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. The court denied the motion to dissolve the injunction, reasoning that premature liquidation would prevent reliquidation in accordance with a final court decision if the plaintiffs prevailed, as required by statute, and that dissolution would not be equitable given unresolved issues. Sua sponte, the court also stayed further proceedings in the case due to the possibility of mootness arising from separate actions contesting Commerce's later rescission of the countervailing duty order.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Daimler Chrysler challenged the U.S. Customs Service's denial of duty-free 'American Goods Returned' treatment under HTSUS subheading 9802.00.80 for U.S.-exported sheet metal parts later assembled into vehicles in Mexico. The plaintiff moved to stay the defendant's pre-answer discovery requests, arguing that the answer would clarify disputed issues, prior similar litigation existed, and a recent Supreme Court decision might support summary judgment. The court granted the stay, reasoning that the defendant had not shown any need for immediate discovery to file an answer or any prejudice from delay, and that an answer plus further scheduling would better define relevant facts before discovery proceeds.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the U.S. government's 1986 action under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(d) against importers and their surety to recover over $416,000 in alleged lost customs duties, plus interest, stemming from five 1981 entries of gold jewelry at the port of Seattle that were claimed to involve fraudulent undervaluation and forged documentation to evade full duties. Defendant Washington International Insurance Company, the surety on the entry bonds, moved to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution under USCIT Rule 41(b)(3) due to the government's multi-year delays after filing. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding a clear record of failure to prosecute with due diligence, absence of excusable neglect, and resulting prejudice to the defendant from the passage of time that made it impossible to fairly litigate the claims. The court rejected arguments for alternative sanctions like reducing prejudgment interest, noting that no special leniency applies to government plaintiffs in such matters.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Bestfoods (formerly CPC International) and the United States over U.S. customs marking requirements for imported goods under the pre-NAFTA substantial transformation test. After an initial judgment favoring the government was reversed and vacated on appeal by the Federal Circuit, the case was remanded to allow Bestfoods to present additional arguments. On remand, no further arguments or actions were submitted by either party. As a result, the Court of International Trade dismissed the action entirely.

business & regulatory

This case involves parallel civil and criminal proceedings stemming from alleged fraudulent import invoices under 19 U.S.C. § 1592. In the civil penalty action, the defendants impleaded a third-party defendant who had entered a guilty plea and agreed to cooperate in the related criminal case. The third-party defendant moved to dismiss or stay the third-party complaints for fraud, indemnification, contribution, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court denied the motion, reasoning that a potential future criminal conviction was hypothetical and did not bar the civil claims, that the movant faced no self-incrimination risk after pleading guilty, and that civil discovery on a statute of limitations defense posed no threat to the criminal prosecution.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory