International Custom Products, Inc. v. United States
34 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2214
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- ICP imported white sauce; CBP issued binding Ruling Letter D86228 (Jan 20, 1999) classifying it at 2103.90.90 with 6.6% duty.
- CBP later liquidated ICP's entry under a higher tariff via a 2005 Notice of Action reclassifying to 0405.20.3000, increasing duties ~2400%.
- ICP challenged the Notice in multiple prior suits; this case, filed in 2007, seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a).
- The current case was bifurcated: Phase I addressed § 1625(c)(1) and due process; Phase II reserved, stayed pending Phase I outcome.
- The court found the Entry conformed to the Ruling Letter and ordered reliquidation at the Letter’s rate with interest; judgment issued under Rule 54(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Ruling Letter void ab initio? | ICP contends no material misrepresentation in the ruling application. | Government argues the Ruling Letter was void due to misstatements/omissions. | Ruling Letter was not void ab initio. |
| Did the Ruling Letter apply to the Entry? | Entry matched the Ruling Letter’s description; conformance shown by CMC/xanthan and milkfat data. | Customs disputed conformance and claims mischaracterization undermines applicability. | Ruling Letter applied; Customs violated 19 C.F.R. § 177.9(b)(2) by not applying it. |
| Did the Notice of Action unlawfully revoke the Ruling Letter without notice and comment? | Notice of Action improperly revoked the ruling contrary to 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)(1). | Argues it was a valid interpretive action within agency discretion. | Notice of Action unlawfully revoked the Ruling Letter without required procedures. |
| What remedy is appropriate? | Reliquidation at the Ruling Letter rate with interest and refunds of overpayments. | Argues for broader relief or challenge to the ruling’s validity. | Plaintiff entitled to reliquidation at the Ruling Letter rate and interest/refund. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Custom Products, Inc. v. United States, 467 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2006) (jurisdiction under disparate provisions and remand discussed (ICP II))
- Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United States, 347 F.3d 922 (Fed. Cir.2003) (de novo standard for certain judicial reviews in tariff cases)
- International Custom Products, Inc. v. United States, 374 F.Supp.2d 1311 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005) (contextual discussion of ruling revocation and 1625 procedures)