International Custom Products, Inc. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6813
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- ICP imported and distributed food ingredients and requested a ruling on white sauce classification under HTSUS in 1998; Customs issued Ruling Letter classifying it under HTSUS 2103.90.9060 with 6.6% duty in 1999.
- Customs later initiated a 2004 investigation and OR&R concluded the Ruling Letter did not apply to pending entries because they would be used to make cheese.
- In 2005, Customs issued a broad Notice of Action reclassifying all pending and future white sauce entries under HTSUS 0405.20.3000, increasing duties substantially.
- ICP protested and paid duties on a single entry; the CIT held the Notice of Action void for failure to follow 1625(c) notice-and-comment procedures.
- This court affirmed the CIT, holding the Notice of Action effectively revoked the Ruling Letter and required reliquidation under the Ruling Letter’s classification.
- The Government appealed, arguing §1625(c) did not apply and the Notice of Action was not an interpretive ruling; the court concluded the Notice of Action was an interpretive ruling/decision requiring notice and comment under §1625(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Notice of Action revoked the Ruling Letter subject to §1625(c). | ICP | US argues no effective revocation and that NOA is entry-specific. | Yes; Notice of Action effectively revoked the Ruling Letter and triggered §1625(c) procedures. |
| Whether a Notice of Action can be an interpretive ruling/decision under §1625(c). | ICP | US contends not; instead a notice is not an interpretive ruling. | Yes; Notice of Action constitutes an interpretive ruling/decision under §1625(c). |
Key Cases Cited
- Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001) (imports rule changes require notice and comment)
- California Industrial Prods., Inc. v. United States, 436 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (interpretive rulings can include more than letters; scope analyzed)
- Alaska Professional Hunters Ass’n, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 177 F.3d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (APA-like notice/applicability to interpretive changes)
- Glaxo Grp. Ltd. v. TorPharm, Inc., 153 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (agency interpretation effects; route to relief)