2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 141
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Cisco seeks reclassification of networking equipment and parts entered 2001–2002; liquidations occurred under HTSUS 9013.80.90 and 9013.90.90 (2002–2003).
- Government challenges jurisdiction, arguing protests did not specifically name and identify merchandise and amendments were untimely.
- Customs denied 23 protests for overbreadth; Cisco amended some protests, but Customs deemed amendments untimely.
- Plaintiff filed summons listing HTSUS headings and later filed a Complaint; Government answered.
- Court held Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, finding protests sufficiently specific and jurisdiction valid.
- Court treated motion as Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings, excluding extraneous materials and not converting to summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether protests adequately name and identify merchandise | Cisco argues ‘networking equipment and parts’ is a valid category | Government says the phrase is too vague to constitute a valid protest | Protests sufficiently specific; jurisdiction exists |
| Whether amendments after liquidation deadlines are permissible | Amendments relate back to valid protests under §1514(c)(1) | Amendments untimely and beyond 90-day period | Amendments allowed if they relate to valid protests; jurisdiction preserved |
| Whether the court should convert the motion to summary judgment | Motion should be treated as summary judgment under Rule 56 | Motion remains a 12(b)/(c)-style challenge | Motion not converted to summary judgment; treated as judgment on the pleadings with outside materials excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Computime, Inc. v. United States, 772 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (jurisdiction depends on valid protest)
- Davies v. Arthur, 96 U.S. 148 (1877) (protest must describe merchandise sufficiently to notify customs)
- Beck Distributing Corp. v. United States, 67 Cust. Ct. 358 (Cust. Ct. 1971) (protest naming engine parts suffices for specificity)
- United States v. Parksmith Corp., 514 F.2d 1052 (1st Cir. 1975) (protest sufficiency depends on notice of claim)
- Koike Aronson, Inc. v. United States, 165 F.3d 906 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (protest sufficiency standards in context of classifications)